Armstrong v. City of Lancaster
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the district court of Lancaster county. Action of assumpsit for work and labour by James Armstrong, surviving partner of the late firm of James Armstrong & John Atkinson, for the use of George B. Markley, against the mayor, aider-men and citizens of Lancaster.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the district court of Lancaster county. Action of assumpsit for work and labour by James Armstrong, surviving partner of the late firm of James Armstrong & John Atkinson, for the use of George B. Markley, against the mayor, aider-men and citizens of Lancaster. The only question argued in this court, arose out of an offer by the plaintiff to give in evidence the assignment by the plaintiff, James Armstrong, to the equitable plaintiff, George B. Markley, of the claim on which suit was brought, “ accompanied b}^ parol proof, to show, that the two notes mentioned in the assignment, were…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
We have heretofore intimated that the title of an equitable plaintiff need not be traced from the legal plaintiff by averment, or otherwise indicated than by marking the suit to his use. A legal title is certainly sufficient for the maintenance of an action, except, perhaps, where the commonwealth stands as a trustee in an official bond; and there it may be necessary to show a particular injury as a title to her interference, in order to secure the obligor from an officious intermeddling. But to encumber the pleadings, in ordinary cases,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Beale v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Neal to Use v. B.R. P. Rwy. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- M'Kinney v. MehaffeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Lightner v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Memphis, Clarksville, & Louisville Railroad v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.