Vanarsdale v. Richards

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Vanarsdale v. Richards

1 Whart. 408, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 209

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 12, 1836·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The trust involved in this assignment, is peculiarly a subject of equitable cognizance; and though an actual want of chancery powers might compel us to sustain an action at law in the first instance, it does not follow, that a cestui que trust shall not [410] be thrown on his equitable resources, where such have been provided for him. We consider the point to have been already decided.

Mr. Randall took nothing by his motion.

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

Per Curiam.

The trust involved in this assignment, is peculiarly a subject of equitable cognizance; and though an actual want of chancery powers might compel us to sustain an action at law in the first instance, it does not follow, that a cestui que trust shall not [410] be thrown on his equitable resources, where such have been provided for him. We consider the point to have been already decided.

Mr. Randall took nothing by his motion.

Vanarsdale v. Richards, 1 Whart. 408, 1836 Pa. LEXIS 209 (Pa. 1836).

Pincite

1 Whart. 408 (Vanarsdale v. Richards) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related