Mason v. Wickersham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. Thomas Wickersham against Washington Mason and William Dilworth, lately trading in the name of Mason and Dilworth. This was an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of a book account.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. Thomas Wickersham against Washington Mason and William Dilworth, lately trading in the name of Mason and Dilworth. This was an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of a book account. The defendants, Mason & Dilworth, were partners doing business as carpenters, from July 1838 to the 21st of June 1839, during which time a considerable account was run up against the firm in the books of the plaintiff, and the balance at the time of the dissolution of partnership was admitted to be $170.70. By the arrangement between Mason and Dilworth, Mason…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Huston, J.
— It would seem the point brought up in this case ought to be considered settled. There was a time, it would seem, when the act done determined the legal effect of what was done, in all cases and under all circumstances. The world at large, and the courts have long since decided that the intention with which an act was done and accepted, the circumstances with which the doing it was attended, the consideration for doing it, are what give effect to it, and determine its legal force and character. On the point in issue, this was decided by this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Estate of DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Arnold v. CampNew York Supreme Court · 1815
- Hart v. BollerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by3 opinions
- Feamster v. WithrowWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Bantz v. BasnettWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Gardner v. ConnOhio Supreme Court · 1877