Stansbury v. Marks

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Stansbury v. Marks

4 U.S. 112

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1793

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 U.S. 112 (Stansbury v. Marks) 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

Stansbury v. Marks, 4 U.S. 112 (1793).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

— The evidence is clearly admissible. Under the general issue, however, the jury may decide, whether the evidence is sufficient to discharge him, or not. The position is generally true, that an infant can only bind himself for necessaries ; yet, in the court of chancery, cases occur, in which a payment would be decreed, contrary to the strict rule of the common law. In this form of action, equity is the principal consideration ; and from necessity, the courts of law, in Pennsylvania, adopt the principles of the English courts of chancery.

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

By the Court.

— The evidence is clearly admissible. Under the general issue, however, the jury may decide, whether the evidence is sufficient to discharge him, or not. The position is generally true, that an infant can only bind himself for necessaries ; yet, in the court of chancery, cases occur, in which a payment would be decreed, contrary to the strict rule of the common law. In this form of action, equity is the principal consideration ; and from necessity, the courts of law, in Pennsylvania, adopt the principles of the English courts of chancery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 U.S. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansbury-v-marks-pa-1793.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack