Cummings v. Lebo

2 Rawle 23, 1829 Pa. LEXIS 118
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 30, 1829·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Justice, convenience, and common sense, require that this exception should not prevail. Equity would reform such [24] a bond as is here set out, on the intrinsic evidence of mistake, which it bears on its face. The-condition is not to appear, and it is in principle' exactly the case- of the promissory npte mentioned by Lord Hardwicke, 2 Atk. 31, in which the borrower promised never to pay. The plaintiff ought to have declared on the instrument according to its legal effect; so that, whether the bond contain the objectionable word or not, the defect in the declaration, being equally the effect of accident,.and amendable below, is to be considered as actually amended here.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cummings v. Lebo, 2 Rawle 23, 1829 Pa. LEXIS 118 (Pa. 1829).

2 Rawle 23 (Cummings v. Lebo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pippel v. O'Malley
N.D. Illinois, 2024
United States v. Anderson
679 F. App'x 711 (Tenth Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Castro-Perez
749 F.3d 1209 (Tenth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Diggs
365 F. App'x 961 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Jones
361 F. App'x 969 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Tafolla-Zavala
362 F. App'x 895 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Kummer
89 F.3d 1536 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Weston
57 Pa. Super. 355 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Kraft v. Gilchrist
31 Pa. 470 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Townsend v. Jemison
48 U.S. 706 (Supreme Court, 1849)
Bogart v. M'Donald
2 Johns. Cas. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)