Hudson v. Carey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. In the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, a case was stated for the opinion of the court, which, for the pur* pose of a writ of error, was to be considered as a special verdict It set forth the following facts.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. In the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, a case was stated for the opinion of the court, which, for the pur* pose of a writ of error, was to be considered as a special verdict It set forth the following facts. On the 17th of Jlpril, 1812, Edward Hudson, the defendant below, drew a promissory note in favour of Cornelius 8¡- Jlndrew Conrad, fy Co.' for 500 dollars, payable sixty days after date, which was indorsed by the payees to Mathew Carey, the plaintiff. On the 5th of September, 1812, the defendant obtained a corticate of discharge under the act of assembly…
1Opinion of the CourtTilghman, C. J.
Matthew Corey, the plaintiff in the District Court, brought this action against Edward Hudson, the plaintiff in error, on a promissory note for 50Ó dollars, drawn by the said Hudson, payable to Cornelius $• Andrew Conrad fy Co , or order, which came to the hands of the plaiqtiff for full value, in the course of businéss. The defendant was discharged from his debts by virtue of an act of Assembly of this commonwealth, passed on the 13th March, 1812, which has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to be unconstitutional and void. The defence in the District Court turned on the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. Bailey ex rel. NeillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826