Odenwelder v. Odenwelder

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Odenwelder v. Odenwelder

1 Whart. 108, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 174

DecidedJanuary 22, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Whart. 108 (Odenwelder v. Odenwelder) 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

Odenwelder v. Odenwelder, 1 Whart. 108, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 174 (Pa. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no weight in any of the exceptions taken in this case. The parties selected their tribunal; and if the terms of the submission are larger than was contemplated by the plaintiff in error, he should have applied to the Court of Common Pleas to correct the supposed mistake. Certainly, we cannot enter into that question here. The report of the referees appears to be sufficiently certain and final. If they have not done with the partnership effects what the plaintiff in error desires, it is because the power to order a sale, is not possessed, at present, by any legal tribunal of this commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no weight in any of the exceptions taken in this case. The parties selected their tribunal; and if the terms of the submission are larger than was contemplated by the plaintiff in error, he should have applied to the Court of Common Pleas to correct the supposed mistake. Certainly, we cannot enter into that question here. The report of the referees appears to be sufficiently certain and final. If they have not done with the partnership effects what the plaintiff in error desires, it is because the power to order a sale, is not possessed, at present, by any legal tribunal of this commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Whart. 108, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odenwelder-v-odenwelder-pa-1836.