Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Stewart versus Biddack, 1792 — 2 U.S. 158 · caselaw · US
General
Stewart versus Biddack
2 U.S. 1582 Dall. 158·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1792·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Stewart versus Biddack.
[MAJORITY]
IN ERROR. Detinet for Connecticut money. On report of referrees, finding a certain sum in Connecticut money due to the plaintiff, judgment was entered for the value, in Pennsylvania money. The judgment was reversed by consent; and Lewis urged, that the Court here could give the same judgment that the Court below had given. But, on considering the authorities, he abandoned the point.