Burns v. Thornburgh

3 Watts 78
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1834·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The revocation of the order to defalcate, is but equivalent to a refusal to defalcate in the first instance, which is not the subject of a writ of error. The power to set one judgment against another, is an inherent one, and' the only equitable power [79]*79which the common law courts originally possessed. Not being conferred by the statute, it is not a legal power, nor its exercise demand-able of right; and being discretionary, the propriety of its exercise cannot be questioned here, where we are incompetent to judge of the circumstances.

Writ quashed.

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

Burns v. Thornburgh, 3 Watts 78 (Pa. 1834).

3 Watts 78 (Burns v. Thornburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Proie Bros. v. Proie
323 F. Supp. 503 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Leitz v. Hohman
56 A. 868 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Barbour v. Bank
50 Ohio St. (N.S.) 90 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1893)
Hovey v. Morrill
61 N.H. 9 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1881)
Ex parte Lehman
59 Ala. 631 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1877)
Herman v. Miller
17 Kan. 328 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1876)
Hays v. Shannon
5 Watts 548 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)