Hart v. James
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THESE actions were brought upon three promissory notes, two of which (included in one declaration) had been indorsed to the Bank; and the third was in the possession of Messrs. Hartshorne and Large, as a collateral security from the Plaintiffs, for the payment of a debt amounting to nearly the sum mentioned in the note.
Read the full summary
THESE actions were brought upon three promissory notes, two of which (included in one declaration) had been indorsed to the Bank; and the third was in the possession of Messrs. Hartshorne and Large, as a collateral security from the Plaintiffs, for the payment of a debt amounting to nearly the sum mentioned in the note. In both actions judgments had been entered generally, on the 28th of April, 1788, with an agreement in each, that the quantum should be ascertained by a reference, and a report made to next term. The referees, however, were not appointed untill the 8th of July, 1788, fix days…
1Opinion of the Court
the Court seemed clearly of opinion, that the first report could not be maintained; that the supplementary report was irregular; and that the rule of reference to report to next term, did not authorise the issuing executions upon the report into office during the vacation (particularly without notice to the Defendant) although a term had intervened between the entering of the rule, and the appointment of the Referees.
No opinion was given on the other points, but the execution and report were, for the above reasons, set aside, and the actions, by consent, referred de novo.
2Cited by5 opinions
- People v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Fretz v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Craig v. CraigSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1827
- Groff v. MusserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
- McHugh v. Landherr, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1945