Stansbury v. Marks

4 U.S. 130, 1 L. Ed. 771, 4 Dall. 130, 1793 U.S. LEXIS 227
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 1, 1793
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 U.S. 130 (Stansbury v. Marks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States 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. 130, 1 L. Ed. 771, 4 Dall. 130, 1793 U.S. LEXIS 227 (1793).

Opinion

4 U.S. 130 (____)
4 Dall. 130

Stansbury
versus
Marks.

Supreme Court of United States.

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

Related

Henderson v. Hays
2 Watts 148 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1834)
Conrad v. Conrad
4 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1793)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 U.S. 130, 1 L. Ed. 771, 4 Dall. 130, 1793 U.S. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansbury-v-marks-scotus-1793.