Fink v. Mahaffy

8 Watts 384
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1839·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch. 557, it was decided that a party whose defence has been overruled as insufficient at law, shall not be relieved in equity merely on the same facts. Is not that the case of the party here, except that he was plaintiff in the suit at law? Moreover, his demand is barred by the statute of limitations; and if the doctrine of substitution is one of mere equity and benevolence, as it has been said to be, it will not be enforced at the expense of a legal right. The substitution was therefore improvident.

Order reversed, and assignment of the judgment stricken out.

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

Fink v. Mahaffy, 8 Watts 384 (Pa. 1839).

8 Watts 384 (Fink v. Mahaffy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Furia v. Philadelphia
118 A.2d 236 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1955)
Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of NJ
101 A.2d 747 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
First National Bank of Ashley v. Reily
67 A.2d 679 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1949)
Gildner v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Bethlehem
19 A.2d 910 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)
Ault v. Adamson
66 Pa. Super. 374 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Charmley v. Charmley
103 N.W. 1106 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Watts v. Eufaula National Bank
76 Ala. 474 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1884)
Wagner v. Elliott
95 Pa. 487 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Lamb v. Withrow
31 Iowa 164 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1870)
Stout's Administrators v. Stout's Administrator
44 Pa. 457 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1863)
Rittenhouse v. Levering
6 Watts & Serg. 190 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1843)
Bank of Pennsylvania v. Potius
10 Watts 148 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1840)