Cromelien v. Mauger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, BMladelphia. Charles Mauger brought this action of assumpsit in the District Court, Philadelphia, against Rowland Cromelien, and filed with the prxeipe a paper in the following words, to wit:— “ The following is a copy of the note upon which the above action is brought:— $778. Nine months after date, I promise to pay R. Cromelien & Co. or order, seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars, at the City Bank of Rochester, for value received.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, BMladelphia. Charles Mauger brought this action of assumpsit in the District Court, Philadelphia, against Rowland Cromelien, and filed with the prxeipe a paper in the following words, to wit:— “ The following is a copy of the note upon which the above action is brought:— $778. Nine months after date, I promise to pay R. Cromelien & Co. or order, seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars, at the City Bank of Rochester, for value received. W. H. Abb,. Burtin.” The date and place where the note was made being omitted, judgment was not applied for; and the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
Tbe opinion of tbe court was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
Tbe maxim, “ expressa nooent, et non expressa non nooent," is a rule of law, because it is sound logic, and it is of very general application. When, therefore, tbe court is requested to charge tbe jury, that on the evidence tbe plaintiff can-hot recover, this request claims simply that tbe evidence presents no cause of action as between the parties, and raises no question as to tbe correspondence between the declaration and the evidence. If, then, tbe evidence of Robert Alsop is sucb that the jury might infer a valid promise by tbe defendant…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lederman v. LazarusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Walter v. JenkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927