Neilson v. Mott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in ERROR. UPON a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Phila- , , . , r „ delptna county, the case was as follows: The action was brought upon a.promissory note dated the 30th January 1804, by which Neilson, the defendant below, promised to pay to the plaintiff or his order, one day after the ■conclusion of the drawing of the extra class of the Easton Delaxvare Bridge Lottery, twelve hundred and fifty dollars, without defalcation, for value received.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. UPON a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Phila- , , . , r „ delptna county, the case was as follows: The action was brought upon a.promissory note dated the 30th January 1804, by which Neilson, the defendant below, promised to pay to the plaintiff or his order, one day after the ■conclusion of the drawing of the extra class of the Easton Delaxvare Bridge Lottery, twelve hundred and fifty dollars, without defalcation, for value received. The declaration contained an averment, that “ the conclusion of the drawing “ of the said extra class of the Easton Delaware Bridge “ Lottery did…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This action was brought on a nóte by which the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff twelve hundred and fifty dollars, one day after the conclusion of the drawing of the extra class of the Easton Delaware Bridge Lottery. This lottery was made by authority of an act of assembly passed the 4th April 1T9S. It was drawn under the superintendance of five commissioners appointed by the governor, who took an oath for the faithful performance of their duty; and those commissioners have certified that the drawing of the lottery was completed. The first question that occurs is,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brent v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- President of Hibernia Turnpike Road v. HendersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- M'Gimpsey v. BookerTennessee Supreme Court · 1833