Lee v. Conard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Upon a writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, the case was thus: To June Term, 1833, of that court, Cornelius Conard brought an action on the case against William Lee, in which the following declaration was filed. “ Philadelphia County, ss. William Lee, late of Philadelphia county, yeoman, was summoned to answer Cornelius Conard of a plea of trespass on the case, &c.
Read the full summary
Upon a writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, the case was thus: To June Term, 1833, of that court, Cornelius Conard brought an action on the case against William Lee, in which the following declaration was filed. “ Philadelphia County, ss. William Lee, late of Philadelphia county, yeoman, was summoned to answer Cornelius Conard of a plea of trespass on the case, &c. And, whereupon the said Cornelius Conard by Jesse Conard his attorney complains, that" whereas, before the committing of the grievances by the said William Lee, hereinafter mentioned; the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kennedy J.
Several errors have been assigned, one of which, only, appears to be sustainable. The others are so totally destitute of even plausibility, that it is unnecessary to notice them otherwise than to pronounce their entire want of every thing that can present itself to the consideration of a court of error, as a ground for relief. The error that we are inclined to consider fatal, is founded on the exception to the opinion of the court, in admitting the testimony of Richard Pryor, to prove that the bond given to secure the payment of the debt, for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- The State of Rhode Island v. the State of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Proffit v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1825
- The State of Rhode Island v. the State of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1838