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.
Stansbury v. Marks, 1793 — 4 U.S. 112 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Stansbury v. Marks
4 U.S. 1124 Dall. 112·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1793·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
Stansbury v. Marks.
Defence of infancy.
In assumpsit, infancy can be given in evidence, under the general issue, but the jury may decide, whether it is a sufficient discharge.
Case. Plea, non assumpsit. The defendant offered to give infancy in evidence, on this plea; to which the plaintiff objected. But—
[MAJORITY — By the Court.]
By the Court.
— The evidence is clearly admissible. Under the general issue, however, the jury may decide, whether the evidence is sufficient to discharge him, or not. The position is generally true, that an infant can only bind himself for necessaries ; yet, in the court of chancery, cases occur, in which a payment would be decreed, contrary to the strict rule of the common law. In this form of action, equity is the principal consideration ; and from necessity, the courts of law, in Pennsylvania, adopt the principles of the English courts of chancery.