CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784)

U.S. Supreme Court

CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784)

1 U.S. 81 (Dall.)

Carlisle et ux.
v.
Cunningham

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

June Term, 1784

Levy obtained a rule to show cause, why a house which had been delivered to the plaintiffs on a liberari facias, that issued in this cause, should not now be surrendered to the vendee of the defendant, upon his bringing into court, the principal, interest, and costs.

On the 9th of August, Lewis and Sergeant showed cause, and the rule was discharged; THE COURT being unwilling to go into the matter in a summary mode, upon mere motion, and expressing their dislike of the ampliare jurisdictionem. The principal question was, therefore, left undetermined.*

Footnotes

[Footnote *] This motion was made when house rent was rising very rapidly, and the defendant's house, in the present instance, was extended at a very moderate valuation: the residue of the term was, therefore, a great object to both parties. I have not heard, however, of any other attempt being made by the defendant; but, I think, the Court recommended the Venire Facias ad computandum, which issues in England, where tenant by Elegit holds over, after being satisfied for debt and costs.[ Carlisle v. Cunningham

Footnote 1 U.S. 81 (1784) ]




U.S. Supreme Court

CARLISLE v. CUNNINGHAM, 1 U.S. 81 (1784)

1 U.S. 81 (Dall.)

Carlisle et ux.
v.
Cunningham

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

June Term, 1784

Levy obtained a rule to show cause, why a house which had been delivered to the plaintiffs on a liberari facias, that issued in this cause, should not now be surrendered to the vendee of the defendant, upon his bringing into court, the principal, interest, and costs.

On the 9th of August, Lewis and Sergeant showed cause, and the rule was discharged; THE COURT being unwilling to go into the matter in a summary mode, upon mere motion, and expressing their dislike of the ampliare jurisdictionem. The principal question was, therefore, left undetermined.*

Footnotes

[Footnote *] This motion was made when house rent was rising very rapidly, and the defendant's house, in the present instance, was extended at a very moderate valuation: the residue of the term was, therefore, a great object to both parties. I have not heard, however, of any other attempt being made by the defendant; but, I think, the Court recommended the Venire Facias ad computandum, which issues in England, where tenant by Elegit holds over, after being satisfied for debt and costs.[ Carlisle v. Cunningham

Footnote 1 U.S. 81 (1784) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.