CARSON v. HOOD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 108 (1790)

U.S. Supreme Court

CARSON v. HOOD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 108 (1790)

4 U.S. 108 (Dall.)

Carson
v.
Hood's Executors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1790

DEBT. Plea, nil debet. The principal point in this case was, whether debt would lie against executors, on a simple contract of the testator?

Bradford, for the plaintiff, stated the rule to be, that if the executors demur to the action, they are entitled to judgment; but, if they plead to issue, they cannot, afterwards, make the objection: and the following authorities were cited to maintain the distinction. Cro. E. 600. 557. Cro. C. 187. Cro. E. 121. 1 And. 182. Golds. 106. Leon. 165. Vaugh. 99. 1 Sid. 333. Plowd. Rep. 182. Palm. 32. Cro. E. 435. 459. Yelv. 56. 1 Lev. 200. 1 Vent. 139. Vaugh. 97.

THE COURT.

The COURT, being unanimously of this opinion, gave judgment, for the plaintiff: having, on a preliminary point, decided, that after a verdict, they will presume, every thing was done, at the trial, which was necessary to support the action, unless the contrary appeared upon the record. 3 Burr. 1725. 1729. 1 Wils. 225. 2 Stra. 1180.


U.S. Supreme Court

CARSON v. HOOD'S EX'RS, 4 U.S. 108 (1790)

 4 U.S. 108 (Dall.)

Carson
v.
Hood's Executors.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1790

DEBT. Plea, nil debet. The principal point in this case was, whether debt would lie against executors, on a simple contract of the testator?

Bradford, for the plaintiff, stated the rule to be, that if the executors demur to the action, they are entitled to judgment; but, if they plead to issue, they cannot, afterwards, make the objection: and the following authorities were cited to maintain the distinction. Cro. E. 600. 557. Cro. C. 187. Cro. E. 121. 1 And. 182. Golds. 106. Leon. 165. Vaugh. 99. 1 Sid. 333. Plowd. Rep. 182. Palm. 32. Cro. E. 435. 459. Yelv. 56. 1 Lev. 200. 1 Vent. 139. Vaugh. 97.

THE COURT.

The COURT, being unanimously of this opinion, gave judgment, for the plaintiff: having, on a preliminary point, decided, that after a verdict, they will presume, every thing was done, at the trial, which was necessary to support the action, unless the contrary appeared upon the record. 3 Burr. 1725. 1729. 1 Wils. 225. 2 Stra. 1180.

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.