Stiles v. Donaldson, (1796)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number:
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 01, 1796
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2017
Summary: 2 U.S. 264 (_) 2 Dall. 264 STILES, Plf. in Er. versus DONALDSON. Supreme Court of United States. *265 Ingersoll, for the Defendant in Error. Condy, for the Plaintiff in Error. But THE COURT were, unanimously, of opinion, that the accounts, on which the set-off had been claimed, were not within the act of Limitations; and that the Common Pleas had done right in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant. Judgment affirmed.
2 U.S. 264 (____)
2 Dall. 264
STILES, Plf. in Er.
versus
DONALDSON.
Supreme Court of United States.
Ingersoll, for the Defendant in Error.
Condy, for the Plaintiff in Error.
But THE COURT were, unanimously, of opinion, that the accounts, on which the set-off had been claimed, were not within the act of Limitations; and that the Common Pleas had done right in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Source: CourtListener
