Geary v. Cunningham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Account Render was'brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, by the defendant in error, Patrick Cunningham, against the plaintiff in error, Richard Geary, and the parties agreed to refer all matters in variance between them, (comprehending the whole of theirpartnershiptransactions and accounts,) to three persons, under the act of 1705, and that upon their report, or thatofa majority of them, the prothonotary should enter judgment which should be final and…
Read the full summary
Account Render was'brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county, by the defendant in error, Patrick Cunningham, against the plaintiff in error, Richard Geary, and the parties agreed to refer all matters in variance between them, (comprehending the whole of theirpartnershiptransactions and accounts,) to three persons, under the act of 1705, and that upon their report, or thatofa majority of them, the prothonotary should enter judgment which should be final and conclusive. The arbitrators awarded in favour of the plaintiff, Geary, the sum of 1018 dollars and 97 cents, and costs of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court, (Tilghman, C. J. being absent,) was delivered by
Gibson, J.
An award of arbitrators who stand in the place of a jury, will be bad where a verdict would be bad; and a verdict for a debt or damages to be paid by instalments or in futuro, will not be sustained unless, perhaps, under particular equitable circumstances. Here however the action was not for a debt or for damages, but to have an account of a partnership, and therefore there is no room for an inference that the cause of action accrued after the *231commencement of the suit. Account render is at best a clumsy remedy…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barde v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1801