Bank of North America v. Fitzsimons
2 Binn. 454, 1810 Pa. LEXIS 33
Opinion
Situated as I am, I shall rely very much upon the opinion of Judge Brackenridge.
I am decidedly against the motion. It would be a precedent, that would involve us in endless difficulties. That a judge has given an opinion before, is not a cause of challenge; and as the judge who is interested, may qualify himself, I cannot, because he refuses to do it, interfere with the rights of a third person. I cannot answer it to those to whom I am answerable.
Motion overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bank of North America v. Fitzsimons, 2 Binn. 454, 1810 Pa. LEXIS 33 (Pa. 1810).
2 Binn. 454 (Bank of North America v. Fitzsimons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Notley v. Brown
17 Haw. 393 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1906)
People v. Haas
105 A.D. 119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
The Richmond
9 F. 863 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1881)
In re Sime
22 F. Cas. 145 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California, 1872)
Taylor v. Williams
26 Tex. 583 (Texas Supreme Court, 1863)
Wilson v. Wilson
36 Ala. 655 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)