History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pelletreau v. Rathbone
18 Johns. 428
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1821
Check Treatment

The counsel for the plaintiff having stated the case, and the points, The Court said, that they did not wish to hear any arguments. That the question was clearly settled, that, no action could be maintained at law for a legacy, and that the defendants were entitled to judgment.(a)

Judgment for the defendants.

The following authorities were noted by the counsel: For the defendants: Dicks v. Strutt, 5 Term Rep. 690. Beecher v. Beecher, 7 Johns Rep. 99. Livingston v Executors of Livingston, 3 Johns. Rep 189. Van Orden v. Van Orden, 10 Johns. Rep. 30. 2 Woodeson, 478. Hobart, 265. Webb v. Jiggs, 4 Maule & Selwyn's Rep. 113. 2 Salk. 215. note by Evans, as to the dictum of Lord Holt, in 6 Mod. 26. 1 Tidd’s Pr. 632. 1 Wils. 89. 1 Chitty Pl. 32, 33. 3 Esp. N. P. Rep. 76.

For the plaintiffs : 6 Mod. 26. Anon. per Holt, Ch. J. 4 Burr. 2381. 3 Com. Dig. Debt, (A.) Cowp 291. 2 Johns. Rep, 243. 3 Johns. Rep. 189.

Case Details

Case Name: Pelletreau v. Rathbone
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 15, 1821
Citation: 18 Johns. 428
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
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.