Legal Opinion

Eckel v. Murphey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 15, 1851PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to the Common Pleas of Sehuylhill county. This was an amicable action on the case, to September term 1848, in which there was a verdict for defendant. The action was instituted upon a promissory note for the sum of $737.06, dated the 8th day of April, 1848, payable at sixty days. Plaintiff declared on the note, and added a count for goods sold and delivered.

Read the full summary

Error to the Common Pleas of Sehuylhill county. This was an amicable action on the case, to September term 1848, in which there was a verdict for defendant. The action was instituted upon a promissory note for the sum of $737.06, dated the 8th day of April, 1848, payable at sixty days. Plaintiff declared on the note, and added a count for goods sold and delivered. The defendant set up as defence to the payment of the note, that it was given in pursuance of a contract for the sale of all plaintiff’s red-ash coal mined that season at Tremont—that the plaintiff had violated the said contract, in…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bell, J.

The instruction given to the jury below, that the plaintiff could not recover without showing a complete performance on his part of the written agreement of January 1848, is professedly founded on the doctrine declared in Algeo v. Algeo, 10 Ser. & R. 235, and Harris v. Liggett, 1 W. & Ser. 301. But in the hurry almost necessarily attendant upon a trial at bar, the court overlooked a very important feature of the present controversy, broadly distinguishing it from the authorities cited. In those cases, the somewhat anomalous rule was recognised,…

2Cited by17 opinions

  1. Discover Bank v. MorganTennessee Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  3. Witten v. StoutSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Leonard v. Wessel (In Re Jackson)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Altoona Clay Products, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1968

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API