Hester's Case

2 Watts & Serg. 416
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 15, 1841·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The established rule of law which has been constantly recognised and acted on by this court, is, that a mandamus will not be granted where there is a specific remedy by action. Commonwealth v. Rosseter, (2 Binn. 362). To determine whether the county commissioners are bound to pay this bill, the party has a remedy by action. He must first sue the county commissioners, and recover against them, before he can apply here for a mandamus.

Motion refused.

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

Hester's Case, 2 Watts & Serg. 416 (Pa. 1841).

2 Watts & Serg. 416 (Hester's Case) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Homan v. MacKey
144 A. 897 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Homan v. Mackey
11 Pa. D. & C. 195 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Wheelock v. Auditor of Suffolk County
130 Mass. 486 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Overseers of Porter Township v. Overseers of Jersey Shore
82 Pa. 275 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1876)
Commonwealth ex rel. O'Connor v. McCuen
75 Pa. 215 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1874)
Adams v. County Commissioners of Hampden
82 Mass. 41 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
Shell v. Commissioners of Dauphin County
1 Pears. 89 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1855)