Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mckimm Vs. Riddle

Mckimm vs Riddle

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1788
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/77973
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
2 U.S. 100

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mckimm

Respondent

Riddle

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

mckimm v. riddle - 2 u.s. 100 (1788) u.s. supreme court mckimm v. riddle, 2 u.s. 100 (1788) 2 u.s. 100 (dall.) m'kimm et al. executors v. riddle* supreme court of pennsylvania may sessions, 1788 assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. pleas, non assumpsit, payment , &c.; the plaintiffs, having proved the contract, were called on to produce their letters testamentary; but the counsel insisted, that although they had them, they were not bound to produce them on the present issue. by the court: it is not necessary, under the pleas in this cause, to produce the letters testamentary. if the defendant wished to have them produced, he should have pleaded, and put the matter in issue. footnotes [ footnote * ] ruled at carlisle nisi prius. (a.) 1 dall. rep. 261. chapman versus steinmetz.[ mckimm v. riddle footnote 2 u.s. 100 (1788) ]

Full Judgment

MCKIMM v. RIDDLE - 2 U.S. 100 (1788)
U.S. Supreme Court MCKIMM v. RIDDLE, 2 U.S. 100 (1788)

2 U.S. 100 (Dall.)

M'Kimm et al. Executors
v.
Riddle*

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May Sessions, 1788

Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment , &c.;

The plaintiffs, having proved the contract, were called on to produce their Letters Testamentary; but the Counsel insisted, that although they had them, they were not bound to produce them on the present issue.

By the Court: It is not necessary, under the pleas in this cause, to produce the Letters Testamentary. If the defendant wished to have them produced, he should have pleaded, and put the matter in issue. Footnotes

[ Footnote * ] Ruled at Carlisle Nisi Prius. (a.) 1 Dall. Rep. 261. Chapman versus Steinmetz.[ McKimm v. Riddle

Footnote 2 U.S. 100 (1788) ]




Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial