Piscataqua Bank v. Turnley
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a foreign attachment issued in case returnable to June term 1836. The facts as they appeared on the hearing of this rule were as follows. The Piscataqua bank, plaintiffs, is a corporation of the state of New Hampshire, and its bankinghouse is located at Portsmouth in that state.
Read the full summary
THIS was a foreign attachment issued in case returnable to June term 1836. The facts as they appeared on the hearing of this rule were as follows. The Piscataqua bank, plaintiffs, is a corporation of the state of New Hampshire, and its bankinghouse is located at Portsmouth in that state. This bank made an arrangemen t with the Globe Bank of Boston, by which the latter institution agreed, on receiving a deposit of funds from the former bank, to redeem its bank notes in specie as they were presented. In pursuance of this arrangement, the Globe Bank redeemed notes issued by the Piscataqua Bank…
1Opinion of the Court
*316The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Jones, J.
Two questions have been discussed in this case, which it is not necessary now to decide: 1st. Whether the felony does not merge or extinguish the civil injury, or at least suspend the remedy until the defendant shall have been prosecuted for the crime. 2d, Whether any action ex contractu can be maintained for the cause set forth in the affidavits. Still, as these questions have been raised, we take occasion to say, it is by no means clear that this rule could be supported on either of these grounds. The principle that a felony merges a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Porter v. HildebrandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Rogers v. HuieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1851
- Boston & Worcester Railroad v. DanaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1854
- Amadio v. LevinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Amadio v. LevinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.