Dixon v. Sturgeon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. THE defendants in error, who were plaintifls below, issued a summons in debt on “ a verbal promise and covenant, not exceeding $ 300,” and filed a statement agreeably to the 5th section of the act of 21st March, 1806,(a) to regulate arbitrations and proceedings in Courts of justice, in which they set forth a verbal promise to pay a certain sum of money.
Read the full summary
In Error. THE defendants in error, who were plaintifls below, issued a summons in debt on “ a verbal promise and covenant, not exceeding $ 300,” and filed a statement agreeably to the 5th section of the act of 21st March, 1806,(a) to regulate arbitrations and proceedings in Courts of justice, in which they set forth a verbal promise to pay a certain sum of money. The plaintiffs insisting on a plea in Court, or judgment, the defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ statement, and declined pleading; upon which a judgment by default was entered, and an execution issued; to reverse which, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J.
This was a proceeding under the act of 21st March, 1806, commonly called the statement law. The object of this law was, to enable parties to conduct their own suits, in the cases specified in the act. When the cause of action arose on contracts for the payment of money, was founded on verbal promises, book account, note, bond, penal or single bill, the legislature gave the form of writ, and instead of requiring a formal technical declaration, and a formal technical plea, substituted a statement by the plaintiff, and a counter statement by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hancock v. ButlerTexas Supreme Court · 1858