Legal Opinion

Pleasants v. Pemberton

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 15, 1793PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Case. 'The declaration consisted of three counts: — 1st, Money lent. 2d, Money had and received to the plaintiff’s use; and 3d, Insimul computas set.

The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and payment, and the statute of limitations.

The action was brought for the use of George Fox, esq. and Mary his wife, who was the only child of Charles Pemberton, one of the sons of Israel Pemberton, to recover a sum of money which Joseph Pemberton the intestate, owed to his father’s estate, in order to equalize their dividends of the personal estate of the said Israel.

The defendant gave in evidence a receipt…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  2. Harrisburg Bank v. ForsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
  3. Gest v. EspySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
  4. Kachlein v. RalstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1795
  5. State Fire & Marine Insurance v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harrisburg Bank v. ForsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
  2. Mitchell v. ConrowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
  3. Knight v. PackardCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1825

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API