History
  • No items yet
midpage
Moore v. Wait
1 Binn. 219
Pa.
1807
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Tilghman C. J.

The jurisdiction of the justice is founded on the act of Assembly; and having exceeded that jurisdiction, the judgment is erroneous. On the appeal every objection on the law or the merits was open to the appellant; and it appearing to the Common Pleas on the face of the record that the judgment of the justice was erroneous, it was their duty to arrest the judgment, although this matter was not pleaded.

Yeates J. and Smith J. concurred.





Concurrence Opinion

Brackenridge J.

concurred with great reluctance. Pie

said his mind was not perfectly satisfied that it was not the defendant’s duty to plead to the jurisdiction, either before the justice or in the Common Pleas.

Case Details

Case Name: Moore v. Wait
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Sep 14, 1807
Citation: 1 Binn. 219
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.