Meade v. M'Dowell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. IN error to the Common Pleas of Crawford, the case was as follows: It was assumpsit to December term 1807, by the defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, to recover from Meade the sum of 572 dollars and interest, due to the plaintiff by one Wilson, for whom the defendant had made himself responsible. Pleas non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra sex anuos.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. IN error to the Common Pleas of Crawford, the case was as follows: It was assumpsit to December term 1807, by the defendant in error, who was plaintiff below, to recover from Meade the sum of 572 dollars and interest, due to the plaintiff by one Wilson, for whom the defendant had made himself responsible. Pleas non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra sex anuos. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following letter from the defendant to him. “ Dear Sir, “ Mr. Wilson having proposed to go to Philadelphia, in “ order to purchase goods, I wish you to give him…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
After stating the facts, delivered his opinion as follows:
This cause was tried on the issues of non assumpsit and the act of limitations, and three questions arose on the trial. 1st, Whether the writings signed by Wilson were legal evidence against Meade? 2d, Whether Meade was responsible for the premium of twelve and a half per cent.? 3d, Whether the writing of the 25th of June 1802 took the defendant’s case ®ut of the act of limitations?
1. I have no doubt of the writings signed by Wilson being evidence against Meade. Wilson was to make the contract, and Meade to be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bondurant v. Bank of AlabamaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Bank of Newbury v. SinclairSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Schaefer v. GildeaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1876
- Lanusse v. BarkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- Griffith v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846