Opinion

Brown v. Barnett

  • 2 Binn. 33
  • 1809 Pa. LEXIS 18
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 8, 1809
Status
Published
Author
Tilghman
On the bench
Tilghman
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 93.7%

The opinion

Tilghman C. J. “

It appears by the record that payment * • * * was pleaded, with leave to give the special matter m «¡vi *34 dence, but there is no mention of the issue being joined. I am always sorry to reverse a judgment after a trial of the merits* and the case has therefore been held under consideration since the 'last term, to search for precedents. No case however has been found to warrant a judgment of affirmance. The farthest that-the Court has gone, was in the case of Myer v. Herring, determined at Philadelphia in December 1806. That was an action of covenant. The plaintiff assigned breaches in his declaration, the defendant pleaded covenants performed and non damnificatus, and after that the words “ and issues,” were entered on the docquet. It was decided that this was sufficient, because the mention of issues was tantamount to a direction to the clerk to join the issues, and the not doing of it was in the nature of a clerical omission. I should have been extremely glad if the entry had been the same in this case* but some principle must be adhered to, least in an attempt to do justice in a particular case, we do a public injury, by taking away all certainty. I am of opinion that the judgment must be reversed.

Yeates J. Of the same opinion.

Br.ackenr.idge J. Of the same opinion.

Judgment reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.