Waggoner v. Line
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of debt upon abend in the Common r r, 7 • „ Pleas or Dauphin, to which the plaintiffs m error pleaded non est factum and payment. „ , _ On the day preceding the trial of the cause, their counsel moved for leave to withdraw the plea of non est factum, which the court refused to permit, and upon this writ of error being brought, he assigned it for error, stating the inconvemenee of the court's decision to have been, that the counsel of the…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of debt upon abend in the Common r r, 7 • „ Pleas or Dauphin, to which the plaintiffs m error pleaded non est factum and payment. „ , _ On the day preceding the trial of the cause, their counsel moved for leave to withdraw the plea of non est factum, which the court refused to permit, and upon this writ of error being brought, he assigned it for error, stating the inconvemenee of the court's decision to have been, that the counsel of the defendants were thus precluded from concluding. It is not error in the Common Pleas to refuse leave to the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The Only error insisted on in the afguthis cause, is; that the court of Common Pleas Would not permit the defendaht to strike out the plea of non e'stfactums and go to trial on the plea of payment. By this, as is' alleged in the assignment of errors, the defendant lost the-advantage of the concluding speech to the jury, which he would have beeh intitled to by the rules of the court on his affirmative plea of payment.
The defendant contends, that he had an absolute right to strike' out his plea of non est factum,, by virtue of the act of 21st March 1806 (to regulate arbitrations…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dennison's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845