Ralston Vs. Bell

Ralston vs Bell

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1796

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78121

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/78121
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1796
Case Number: 2 U.S. 242
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

Ralston

Respondent

Bell

Excerpt

ralston v. bell - 2 u.s. 242 (1796) 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

Full Judgment

RALSTON v. BELL - 2 U.S. 242 (1796)
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

Same Parties Ralston vs Bell Same Subject Service Tax