Fairchild v. Dennison
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Susquehanna county. This was an action of debt, by Mason Dennison against Abel Fairchild. The plaintiff’s declaration contained four counts: first, on a promissory note of 500 dollars; second, for money paid, laid out and expended, 500 dollars; third, on a settled account and balance due, 500 dollars; fourth, for woik and labour done, and materials furnished, 500 dollars.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Susquehanna county. This was an action of debt, by Mason Dennison against Abel Fairchild. The plaintiff’s declaration contained four counts: first, on a promissory note of 500 dollars; second, for money paid, laid out and expended, 500 dollars; third, on a settled account and balance due, 500 dollars; fourth, for woik and labour done, and materials furnished, 500 dollars. After this declaration was filed, the cause was referred to arbitrators, who awarded for the defendant; from which the plaintiff appealed. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff asked leave to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
—'The first error is, that the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to amend his,declaration by filing the statement: and the second error is, that the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to state new and distinct causes of action, after an award of arbitrators against him. Now it is obvious that if the first error can be sustained at all, it must be on the ground that the second error is true, which makes it proper to consider them together as one.
By the act of 1806, it is made the duty'of the court, either on or before the trial of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lake v. TysenNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Hart v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870