Kunckel Vs. Baker

Kunckel vs Baker

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1786

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/77899

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/77899
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1786
Case Number: 1 U.S. 169
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kunckel

Respondent

Baker

Excerpt

kunckel v. baker - 1 u.s. 169 (1786) u.s. supreme court kunckel v. baker, 1 u.s. 169 (1786) 1 u.s. 169 (dall.) kunckel et al. v. baker supreme court of pennsylvania april term, 1786 this was an application for a special court, founded on the act passed the 10th of april, 1782. kunckel, the petitioner, set forth in his affidavit, that one of the plaintiffs, boom, with whom he had been in partnership, had dissolved their connection, since the commencement of the action, and that the outstanding debts had been asigned to kunckel, so as to vest in him the whole interest in the event of the action. it was also stated that kunckel was about to depart from the united states; but that boom had no such intention. the attorney general, for the defendant, objected, that, by thus assigning the interest in an action to a going foreigner, a special court, and an early judgment, might always be within reach, to the prejudice not only of the defendants but of other creditors. and upon this ground the court unanimously refused the prayer of the petition. the plaintiff's counsel then moved, that he ought not to be deprived of his bail by this application; which, requiring a declaration to be previously filed, amounted to an acceptance of a common appearance. in the justice of this motion, the court concurred, and accordingly directed a rule to be entered, that the defendant give bail in two months, or a procedendo. rawle for the plaintiff. bradford for the defendant.[ kunckel v. baker 1 u.s. 169 (1786) ]

Full Judgment

KUNCKEL v. BAKER - 1 U.S. 169 (1786)
U.S. Supreme Court KUNCKEL v. BAKER, 1 U.S. 169 (1786)

1 U.S. 169 (Dall.)

Kunckel et al.
v.
Baker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April Term, 1786

This was an application for a special Court, founded on the act passed the 10th of April, 1782. Kunckel, the petitioner, set forth in his affidavit, that one of the plaintiffs, Boom, with whom he had been in partnership, had dissolved their connection, since the commencement of the action, and that the outstanding debts had been asigned to Kunckel, so as to vest in him the whole interest in the event of the action. It was also stated that Kunckel was about to depart from the United States; but that Boom had no such intention.

The Attorney General, for the defendant, objected, that, by thus assigning the interest in an action to a going foreigner, a special Court, and an early judgment, might always be within reach, to the prejudice not only of the defendants but of other creditors. And upon this ground THE COURT unanimously refused the prayer of the petition.

The plaintiff's counsel then moved, that he ought not to be deprived of his bail by this application; which, requiring a declaration to be previously filed, amounted to an acceptance of a common appearance.

In the justice of this motion, THE COURT concurred, and accordingly directed a rule to be entered, that the defendant give bail in two months, or a Procedendo.

Rawle for the plaintiff. Bradford for the defendant.[ Kunckel v. Baker 1 U.S. 169 (1786) ]

Same Parties Kunckel vs Baker Same Subject Right to Information