Rainey v. Black

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rainey v. Black

3 Pen. & W. 40

DecidedSeptember 15, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pen. & W. 40 (Rainey v. Black) 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

Rainey v. Black, 3 Pen. & W. 40 (Pa. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CuriAm.

Whether the submission were revocable or not, the fact of actual revocation, which was the main point of the defence, was withdrawn from the jury. i But it is Well settled, though not sufficiently attended to in practice, that evidence of the cause of action is not to be superceded by counter evidence in anticipation of its effect. Ünder the plea of non est factum, the court cannot prevent the disputed deed from going before the jury, on a Supposition that the execution of it has not been sufficiently proved, or that the evidence of the party maintaining the affirmative of the issue has been disproved. Here the existence of the submission at the time of the award, Was the very thing to be decided; and as it was a matter of fact, the evidence on both sides ought to have gone to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Per CuriAm.

Whether the submission were revocable or not, the fact of actual revocation, which was the main point of the defence, was withdrawn from the jury. i But it is Well settled, though not sufficiently attended to in practice, that evidence of the cause of action is not to be superceded by counter evidence in anticipation of its effect. Ünder the plea of non est factum, the court cannot prevent the disputed deed from going before the jury, on a Supposition that the execution of it has not been sufficiently proved, or that the evidence of the party maintaining the affirmative of the issue has been disproved. Here the existence of the submission at the time of the award, Was the very thing to be decided; and as it was a matter of fact, the evidence on both sides ought to have gone to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pen. & W. 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainey-v-black-pa-1831.