Mckimm Vs. Riddle

Mckimm vs Riddle

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1788

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/77973

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/77973
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1788
Case Number: 2 U.S. 100
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mckimm

Respondent

Riddle

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) ]

Same Parties Mckimm vs Riddle Same Subject Service Tax