Legal Opinion

Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 8, 1875PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, of Northumberland county: Of September Term 1873. This was an action of assumpsit brought to the August Term 1868, of the court below, by the Henry Clay Coal Company against William T. Grant and Thomas D. Grant, trading as Grant & Brother. The defendants pleaded non assumpserunt and payment, &c., and set-off; they also pleaded nul tiel corporation.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, of Northumberland county: Of September Term 1873. This was an action of assumpsit brought to the August Term 1868, of the court below, by the Henry Clay Coal Company against William T. Grant and Thomas D. Grant, trading as Grant & Brother. The defendants pleaded non assumpserunt and payment, &c., and set-off; they also pleaded nul tiel corporation. The plaintiffs in this case were a corporation of the state of Massachusetts ; they owned extensive leases of coal mines in Northumberland county, Pennsylvania. Their claim was for a quantity of coal furnished to…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson

We have no difficulty in deciding that the certified copy of chapter 61 of the General Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, enacted by the legislature, and approved by the governor thereof, on the 28th day of December 1859, was properly received in evidence. The said act was certified by the secretary of state, under the seal of the Commonwealth. This is in strict compliance with the Act of Congress of the 26th of May 1790, sec. 1, Brightly’s Digest 265, pl. 9, which provides that “ the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated, by having the seal of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  2. Merrick v. Reynolds Engine & Governor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
  3. Adle v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Julius King Optical Co. v. Royal InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  2. Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API