Summerl's Administrators v. Dauphin's Administrators

Supreme Court of Delaware

Summerl's Administrators v. Dauphin's Administrators

1 Del. Cas. 641

Supreme Court of Delaware·Decided August 15, 1814·Published

Opinion

[642]*642Rodney, arguendo, cited the case of Rodney v. Cummins, tempore Chief Justice Read, in which the defendant pleaded the Act of Limitations. Cummins on the day of the trial made some admissions respecting the debt to one Smith, who being produced to prove them, the evidence was objected to on the ground that they were made after plea pleaded.

Bed per Chief Justice.

That can make no manner of difference. The evidence is clearly admissible. Vide, Yea v. Fouraker, 2 Burr. 1099, 1 Dali. 65.

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

[642]*642Rodney, arguendo, cited the case of Rodney v. Cummins, tempore Chief Justice Read, in which the defendant pleaded the Act of Limitations. Cummins on the day of the trial made some admissions respecting the debt to one Smith, who being produced to prove them, the evidence was objected to on the ground that they were made after plea pleaded.

Bed per Chief Justice.

That can make no manner of difference. The evidence is clearly admissible. Vide, Yea v. Fouraker, 2 Burr. 1099, 1 Dali. 65.

Summerl's Administrators v. Dauphin's Administrators, 1 Del. Cas. 641 (Del. 1814).

Pincite

1 Del. Cas. 641 (Summerl's Administrators v. Dauphin's Administrators) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.