RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796)
U.S. Supreme Court
RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796)
2 U.S. 242 (Dall.)
Ralston Assignee
v.
Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
March Term, 1796
This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action.
The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained.
The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination of the Court, and suffered
U.S. Supreme Court
RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796)
2 U.S. 242 (Dall.)
Ralston Assignee
v.
Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
March Term, 1796
This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action.
The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained.
The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination of the Court, and suffered
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.