Hall & M'Kelvey v. Law
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. S. and A. Law against William Hall and Samuel M’Kelvey, trading in the name of Hall & M’Kelvey. This was an action on the case in assumpsit, founded upon two notes of the defendants. The writ was returned served upon M’Kelvey and non est inventus as to Hall. On the margin of the docket entry was “ Findlay for M’Kelvey” and “ Van Amringe.” “ Affidavit of defence filed, and defendant M’Kelvey pleads non assumpsit. Issue.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. S. and A. Law against William Hall and Samuel M’Kelvey, trading in the name of Hall & M’Kelvey. This was an action on the case in assumpsit, founded upon two notes of the defendants. The writ was returned served upon M’Kelvey and non est inventus as to Hall. On the margin of the docket entry was “ Findlay for M’Kelvey” and “ Van Amringe.” “ Affidavit of defence filed, and defendant M’Kelvey pleads non assumpsit. Issue. May 31 1839, judgment for sum due liquidatéd at §706.19.” Upon this state of the record this writ of error was sued out and the…
1Opinion of the Court
*136The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
All things are presumed to be rightly done in a court of record; and we are bound by this maxim to intend that the court gave judgment on an agreement, or with the acquiescence of the parties. Seybert v. The Bank, (5 Watts 308). Every reasonable presumptiojn is to be made in support of a judgment, and this general position is affirmed in Zerger v. Gonter, (13 Serg. & Rawle 58). That case rules, that a judgment entered generally, is not to be considered as a judgment by confession, under particular circumstances. The fair inference from the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beidelman v. FoulkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Zerger v. GonterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pacheco v. BeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877