RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796)2 U.S. 242 (Dall.)
Ralston Assignee
v.
Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
March Term, 1796
This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action.
The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained.
The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some
remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination
of the Court, and suffered
Opinions
v.
Bell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March Term, 1796 This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action. The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained. The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination of the Court, and suffered
U.S. Supreme Court
RALSTON v. BELL, 2 U.S. 242 (1796) 2 U.S. 242 (Dall.) Ralston Assigneev.
Bell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March Term, 1796 This was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action. The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained. The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination of the Court, and suffered
Search This Case
