Patterson v. Schoyer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE complainant Thomas H. Patterson on the 25th of October 1839, filed a bill in the district court of Mlegheny county, representing that the said Solomon Schoyer had commenced an action at law, in said district court against said Patterson on an article of agreement, executed by said Patterson in substance and effect following: — “Articles of agreement, dated the 4th of April 1839, which witnesseth, that the said Dr Patterson, for and in consideration of the sum of 5000…
Read the full summary
THE complainant Thomas H. Patterson on the 25th of October 1839, filed a bill in the district court of Mlegheny county, representing that the said Solomon Schoyer had commenced an action at law, in said district court against said Patterson on an article of agreement, executed by said Patterson in substance and effect following: — “Articles of agreement, dated the 4th of April 1839, which witnesseth, that the said Dr Patterson, for and in consideration of the sum of 5000 dollars, to him in hand paid by the said Solomon Schoyer, the right whereof he doth hereby acknowledge, doth bind himself,…
1Per curiam
The legislature, it is said in the constitution, may vest chancery powers in whatever courts, and to what extent, it pleases; and this regards both original and appellate jurisdiction, for no court can assume either without a grant of it, because it follows not that a superior court may take jurisdiction, as of course, of every thing determined by the court below it. The supreme court is declared by the constitution to have the powers of the king’s bench, and common pleas at Westminster, and hence its power to issue remedial and prerogative writs; but it is not declared to have, except in a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sage v. M'GuireSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842