Pope v. Jones

1 Del. Cas. 493
CourtDelaware Court of Common Pleas
DecidedJuly 15, 1796
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 493 (Pope v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pope v. Jones, 1 Del. Cas. 493 (Del. Super. Ct. 1796).

Opinion

Bassett, C. J.,

to the jury. This is a very plain case. The Act of Limitations is a positive and salutary law here, because it prevents accounts from coming forward which never ought to-have made their appearance. The Court therefore conceive it incumbent upon them to inform you that the law effectually bars, plaintiff’s recovery.

Johns, J.

I recollect the cause in New Castle mentioned by Bayard and was of counsel for the plaintiff in it.

The jury found for defendant without quitting the box.

Fisher was also counsel for defendant.

[Note.] Suppose defendant in the preceding case had moved to strike out his similiter and demur — or that he had demurred to the plaintiff’s replication. 2 Tidd Pr. 678.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Del. Cas. 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-jones-delctcompl-1796.