Potter v. Norman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case stated. The argument in this cause having been resumed on the 24th March 1807, the counsel disagreed, as to the fact of a new petition having been presented to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county, in August term 1800; and as it did not appear by the case stated, how that fact really was, it was proposed to ascertain it, and amend the state of the case accordingly.
Read the full summary
Case stated. The argument in this cause having been resumed on the 24th March 1807, the counsel disagreed, as to the fact of a new petition having been presented to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery county, in August term 1800; and as it did not appear by the case stated, how that fact really was, it was proposed to ascertain it, and amend the state of the case accordingly. But the counsel not having come to any agreement as to the point to be ascertained, the argument was renewed two days afterwards. The arguments were substantially the same as in March term 1802 ; but the counsel for…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinions of the judges were afterwards delivered in substance as follows.
Tilghman, C. J.
I have felt considerable difficulty in deciding this case. I believe however, that difficulty has arisen, not so much from the intricacy of the question, as from my desire to relieve the defendants from what I consider as a hardship. But the bond is too strong to be got over. The defendant John Norman was arrested on a ca. sa. in the vacation. His case falls within the 14th section of the insolvent law of 4th April 1798.
The condition of the bond is nearly in the words of the act of assembly. It is “…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kelly v. StepneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Piatt v. St. Clair's HeirsOhio Supreme Court · 1833
- Wolfram v. StrickhouserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Rowand v. SmileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rowand v. SmileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880