Haldane v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Motion for a new trial. The action was indebitatus as-sumpsit for 1500I. received, to the use of the plaintiffs. Plea non assumpsit and issue. The cause came on to trial January term 1791, when a verdict passed for the plaintiffs foi 598L 15s.
Read the full summary
Motion for a new trial. The action was indebitatus as-sumpsit for 1500I. received, to the use of the plaintiffs. Plea non assumpsit and issue. The cause came on to trial January term 1791, when a verdict passed for the plaintiffs foi 598L 15s. The motion for a new trial was made on the part of the defendants in consequence of a declaration of the judges at the trial, that the defendant's counsel should be permitted to shew, that upon the evidence given, the action was not sustainable, and if the court should be of that opinion, a new trial should be granted. On the trial the evidence given…
1Opinion of the Court
Yeates J.*
This is a motion for a new trial, and is brought forward by the defendants, grounded on the idea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover in this form of action, the rents of the house and lands whereof Mrs. Hester Duché died seized, from the time that Jacob Duché, the elder, had knowledge of the title of the plaintiffs, (which in all proba-*1291 kility was *on the 12th February 1782,) until the day •J of the demise, laid in the declaration in ejectment, on which the recovery of the premises was had, viz. 2d March 1786.
The argument has been conducted on two points; — i-st,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. CavanaghCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. CavanaghCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- Irvine v. HanlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823