Miller v. Ralston

1 Serg. & Rawle 309
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 23, 1815·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

It appears by the record that the action was brought before the debt was due, which is manifest •error. ■ The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Mr. Hopkins then moved for a venire facias de novo, which the Court refused, because there was no error in the course of the trial, but it appeared from the plaintiff’s own averment that there was no cause of action at the time the suit was commenced.

Judgment reversed.

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

Miller v. Ralston, 1 Serg. & Rawle 309 (Pa. 1815).

1 Serg. & Rawle 309 (Miller v. Ralston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Corrigan v. Bank of America, N.A.
189 So. 3d 187 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
State ex rel. Bond v. Fisher
130 S.W. 35 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
McNulty v. Batty
2 Pin. 53 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1847)
Butcher v. Metts
1 Miles 233 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1836)
Griffith v. Eshelman
4 Watts 51 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1835)
Roud v. Griffith
11 Serg. & Rawle 130 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1824)