Bichel v. Rank

5 Watts 140
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1836·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In clothing the courts with chancery powers for the adjustment of liens and distribution of money, the legislature meant not to infringe on the suitor’s constitutional right of trial by jury; and, accordingly, we find its mandate to direct an issue, where facts are in contest, is peremptory. The question to be determined, here, was exclusively a question of fact — whether the judgments in contest were collusive — which depended almost entirely on parol evidence; and the court was obviously bound to send the parties before a jury.

Decree reversed, and record remitted with directions to award an issue with precedence on the trial list.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bichel v. Rank, 5 Watts 140 (Pa. 1836).

5 Watts 140 (Bichel v. Rank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Providence Steam & Gas Pipe Co. v. Chase, Bartholow & Co.
108 Pa. 319 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1885)
Dormer v. Brown
72 Pa. 404 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1872)
Souder's Appeal
57 Pa. 498 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1868)
Dickerson & Haven's Appeal
7 Pa. 255 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1847)
Richie v. McCauley
4 Pa. 471 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1846)
Reigart's Appeal
7 Watts & Serg. 267 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1844)