Hester's Case

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hester's Case

2 Watts & Serg. 416

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 15, 1841

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Watts & Serg. 416 (Hester's Case) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Watts & Serg. 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hesters-case-pa-1841.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack