Wikoff v. Perot

1 Yeates 38
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1791·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Case. Defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw their plea of non-assumpsit, and rely on their plea of payment alone, (apparently to have the benefit of conclusion to the jury) but it was opposed as contrary to all practice. The court thought that the application was not made in time. They would not decide, that there was no case wherein a party might not be permitted to withdraw a plea at the bar; but this clearly cannot be done in the present instance.

Cited in i R., 347, in support of the decision that a plaintiff will not he permitted to discontinue, where it will give him an advantage, or tend to vex and oppress the defendant. By the Act of March 21, 1806, a defendant may alter his plea or defence on or before the trial of the caijse.

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

Wikoff v. Perot, 1 Yeates 38 (Pa. 1791).

1 Yeates 38 (Wikoff v. Perot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mechanics' Bank v. Fisher
1 Rawle 341 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1828)