Fink v. Mahaffy
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Furia v. Philadelphia (Pa. Super. Ct. 1955)
- Roberts v. Fireman's Ins. Co. of NJ (Pa. 1954)
- First National Bank of Ashley v. Reily (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949)
- Gildner v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Bethlehem (Pa. 1941)
- Ault v. Adamson (Pa. Super. Ct. 1917)
- Charmley v. Charmley (Wis. 1905)
- Watts v. Eufaula National Bank (Ala. 1884)
- Wagner v. Elliott (Pa. 1880)
- Lamb v. Withrow (Iowa 1870)
- Stout's Administrators v. Stout's Administrator (Pa. 1863)
- Bank of Pennsylvania v. Potius (Pa. 1840)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In King v. Baldwin, 2 Johns. Ch. 557, it was decided that a party whose defence has been overruled as insufficient at law, shall not be relieved in equity merely on the same facts. Is not that the case of the party here, except that he was plaintiff in the suit at law? Moreover, his demand is barred by the statute of limitations; and if the doctrine of substitution is one of mere equity and benevolence, as it has been said to be, it will not be enforced at the expense of a legal right. The substitution was therefore improvident.
Order reversed, and assignment of the judgment stricken out.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.