Crousillat v. M'Call
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of account render, brought by Crou- •>» • • i r> ni r 71/ ■, j.ni.v. si Hat in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of account render, brought by Crou- •>» • • i r> ni r 71/ ■, j.ni.v. si Hat in the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. After judgment quod computet, auditors were appointed, who on the 16th of October 1810, reported an account between the parties, and also awarded, m conformity therewith, that the sum of 4394 dollars 66 cents, the balance of that account, was due from the plaintiff to the defendant, witn interest from the 17th of April 1810. On the 1st of December the plaintiff filed . 1 r „ , ,. „ -SC suggestions for allowance and disallowance, consisting oí…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
After stating the case and exceptions, delivered his opinion as follows.
1 The first is the principal objection on which the plaintiff relies. The action of account render has not been-frequent in our courts; and where it has been used, it has often been conducted by consent, in a manner which was convenient to both parties. It has either been agreed that the jury should find a verdict for plaintiff or defendant, as in common actions, or that the auditors should make a report as referees. In the case of Moore v. Hunter, 3 Binn. 475, the Court were led to an investigation of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Little v. StantonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Stewart v. WaltersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1879