Brown v. Herron

4 Yeates 560
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Ctiriam.

There can be no possible ground of distinction, either within the words of the rule, or the reason of the thing itself. The object of the rule was to guard against surprize; and if it was proper that notice of the special matter should be given, where part of the demand is disputed, it must be equally so where the defence goes in avoidance of the whole amount of the specialty.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Brown v. Herron, 4 Yeates 560 (Pa. 1808).

4 Yeates 560 (Brown v. Herron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Road in Branch Township
1 Foster 29 (Schuylkill County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1872)
Mayor of Macon v. Shaw
14 Ga. 162 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1853)
Inhabitants of Adams
27 Mass. 273 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1830)
Case v. Shepherd
2 Johns. Cas. 27 (New York Supreme Court, 1800)