Reid v. Geoghehan
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS cause was tried before Pettit, President, and the verdict was for the plaintiff. The defendant obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, and assigned reasons hereinafter stated. in support of the rule, cited, Herrick«. Whitney, 15 Johns. Rep. 240; Dickinson®. Prentice, 4 Esp. Rep. 32 ; Chandler v. Vilett, 2 Saund.
Read the full summary
THIS cause was tried before Pettit, President, and the verdict was for the plaintiff. The defendant obtained this rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, and assigned reasons hereinafter stated. in support of the rule, cited, Herrick«. Whitney, 15 Johns. Rep. 240; Dickinson®. Prentice, 4 Esp. Rep. 32 ; Chandler v. Vilett, 2 Saund. Rep. 120, and note; M’CuIloch v. Huston, I Dali. 443; Richards v. Bicldey, 13 Serg. & Rawle 395; Rolherow v. Elton, Peake's N. P. Cases 117; the 1st and 5th sections of the act of 27th March 1713, for the limitation of actions; and the 3d section…
1Opinion of the Court
Pettit, President.
Tins was an action of assumpsit brought to December term 1833. The first count of the declaration stated the defendant to be the acceptor of a bill of exchange, dated Dublin, January 13th, 1826, at thirty-one days, for 36 pounds, drawn on defendant by Thomas Morrison, payable to his own order, and indorsed by him and by Anthony Geoghehan. The second count stated the defendant to be the drawer of a promissory note, dated Dublin, December 23d, 1825, at two months, for 27 pounds 13 shillings and 10 pence, in favour of Thomas Morrison, and by him indorsed.
The cause was tried…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rice v. StearnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Ludlow v. Union InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815