Scarborough v. Geiger

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Scarborough v. Geiger

1 S.C.L. 368

DecidedNovember 15, 1794

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C.L. 368 (Scarborough v. Geiger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania 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

Scarborough v. Geiger, 1 S.C.L. 368 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1794).

Pincite

Opinion

Bay, J.

observed to the jury, that as this order was drawn on, and accepted by, the defendant, six years after he had every information respecting the funds whereby to take it up, he should not now be allowed to take advantage of it, and say he had no funds, especially as it was his duty, as [369]*369•sheriff, to resell the lands, if the first purchase-money was not paid, and raise the money out of it.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Sunt then gave notice of a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdh-ecUon in the judge, but afterwards relinquished it.

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

Bay, J.

observed to the jury, that as this order was drawn on, and accepted by, the defendant, six years after he had every information respecting the funds whereby to take it up, he should not now be allowed to take advantage of it, and say he had no funds, especially as it was his duty, as [369]*369•sheriff, to resell the lands, if the first purchase-money was not paid, and raise the money out of it.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Sunt then gave notice of a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdh-ecUon in the judge, but afterwards relinquished it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C.L. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarborough-v-geiger-pactcompl-1794.