Cavode v. M'Kelvey

1 Add. 56
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County·Decided March 15, 1793·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

President.

In assumsit on a wager, “whether a decree in the court of Chancery would be reversed, on appeal to the house of Lords,” it was contended, that the event was not contingent, but certain ; for the law is clear, evident, and certain. But it was held, that the consideration was good, and the action lay. Settlement of a dispute is part of the consideration in this case, and [58] seems to be the principal consideration in the view of the parties : that has not failed. There appears no fraud, nor concealment of circumstances, not equally in the knowledge of both parties.

There was a verdict for the defendant.

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

Cavode v. M'Kelvey, 1 Add. 56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1793).

1 Add. 56 (Cavode v. M'Kelvey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. Barton
614 F.3d 893 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Huenefeld v. Maloney
62 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Massachusetts, 1999)
Boyce v. McKenna
178 N.W. 701 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Boyd v. Anderson
1 Tenn. 437 (Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity, 1809)