United States v. Gurney

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

United States v. Gurney

26 F. Cas. 58, 1 Wash. C. C. 446

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania·Decided April 15, 1806·Published

Opinion

BV THE COURT.

The replication is certainly double, as either non-payment on the day, or non-acceptance in satisfaction, is an answer to the plea, though perhaps not a legal one; but if not so. both together cannot be. They are perfectly distinct matters, 'and not the component parts of a plea. But, as this determination would require us to decide upon the validity of the bar set up to the plea, which is attended with great difficulty, we think it best to adjourn the cause to the supreme court, upon a disagreement of the judges; which, however, is not real.

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

BV THE COURT.

The replication is certainly double, as either non-payment on the day, or non-acceptance in satisfaction, is an answer to the plea, though perhaps not a legal one; but if not so. both together cannot be. They are perfectly distinct matters, 'and not the component parts of a plea. But, as this determination would require us to decide upon the validity of the bar set up to the plea, which is attended with great difficulty, we think it best to adjourn the cause to the supreme court, upon a disagreement of the judges; which, however, is not real.

United States v. Gurney, 26 F. Cas. 58, 1 Wash. C. C. 446 (circtdpa 1806).

Pincite

26 F. Cas. 58 (United States v. Gurney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.