YOUNG v. WILLING, 2 U.S. 276 (1797)

U.S. Supreme Court

YOUNG v. WILLING, 2 U.S. 276 (1797)

2 U.S. 276 (Dall.)

Young
v.
Willing, et. al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March Term, 1797

This was an action of Trover, instituted in September term, 1794, to recover the value of certain public certificates, which the plaintiff claimed as his property. It appeared on the trial, however, that he had sold the certificates to the defendants in November 1784, that his present claim was founded on a supposed disaffirmance of the sale (the circumstances of which it is unnecessary to state) when the certificates were discovered to be counterfeit in the month of December following; and that the action was instituted in his own name, though he had been discharged under the laws for the relief of insolvent debtors, in September 1785, after making a general assignment of his property, for the benefit of his creditors. On the opening of the defence, The Court thought the merits were in favor of the

Page 2 U.S. 276, 277

defendants; but being of opinion, that, at all events, the action could not be maintained in the plaintiff's name, they directed a non-suit; which was, accordingly, entered.

Willcocks, Rawle and Hallowell, for the Plaintiff. Ingersoll, Lewis and Dallas for the defendants.


U.S. Supreme Court

YOUNG v. WILLING, 2 U.S. 276 (1797)

 2 U.S. 276 (Dall.)

Young
v.
Willing, et. al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March Term, 1797

This was an action of Trover, instituted in September term, 1794, to recover the value of certain public certificates, which the plaintiff claimed as his property. It appeared on the trial, however, that he had sold the certificates to the defendants in November 1784, that his present claim was founded on a supposed disaffirmance of the sale (the circumstances of which it is unnecessary to state) when the certificates were discovered to be counterfeit in the month of December following; and that the action was instituted in his own name, though he had been discharged under the laws for the relief of insolvent debtors, in September 1785, after making a general assignment of his property, for the benefit of his creditors. On the opening of the defence, The Court thought the merits were in favor of the

Page 2 U.S. 276, 277

defendants; but being of opinion, that, at all events, the action could not be maintained in the plaintiff's name, they directed a non-suit; which was, accordingly, entered.

Willcocks, Rawle and Hallowell, for the Plaintiff. Ingersoll, Lewis and Dallas for the defendants.

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.