Dickerson v. Anderson
4 Whart. 78, 1839 Pa. LEXIS 181
Opinion
— The act requires the defendant to offer a confession of judgment, not to tender the debt; and we should get away from every thing like certainty did we depart from the words. Besides, the justice had authority to receive the money only on the foot of a judgment; and that was not proposed to be given. The present point was left open in M'Dowell v. Glass, not because it was a doubtful one, but because it did not arise.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dickerson v. Anderson, 4 Whart. 78, 1839 Pa. LEXIS 181 (Pa. 1839).
4 Whart. 78 (Dickerson v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Malatesta v. Alberti Sales & Service
46 Pa. D. & C. 709 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
King v. Boyles
31 Pa. 424 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Bogart v. Rathbone
1 Pa. 188 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1845)