Fink v. Mahaffy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fink v. Mahaffy

8 Watts 384

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 15, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 8 Watts 384 (Fink v. Mahaffy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Watts 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fink-v-mahaffy-pa-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack