D'Arcy v. Lyle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
rY~,HIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, in which the 1 plaintiff declared for money paid laid out and expended, money lent and advanced, money had and received, and work, labour, and services.
Read the full summary
rY~,HIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, in which the 1 plaintiff declared for money paid laid out and expended, money lent and advanced, money had and received, and work, labour, and services. It was tried before Teates J. at a Nisi Prius in December last, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damages 3500 dollars; and upon a motion by the defendant for a new trial, his honour reported the r . , . . r ii facts to be as follows: On the 4th of August 1804, the plaintiff, who was then about to proceed to Cape Francois upon commercial busi- . , . .ir, r ness, received from the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
after stating the facts, and remarking that although the records were very imperfect, he thought it sufficiently appeared that the proceedings in 1808, were connected with those of 1804, either as an appeal from the judgment in 1804, or a revival of the suit in a new form, proceeded as follows:
This is one of those extraordinary cases arising out of the extraordinary situation into which the world has been thrown by the French revolution.
If the confession of judgment by the plaintiff had been voluntary, it would have lain on him to show that the 3000 dollars were justly due from…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Elliott v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Maitland v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Denney v. WheelwrightMississippi Supreme Court · 1883
- Greene v. GoddardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1845
- Howe v. Buffalo, New York & Erie RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1867