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.
Roberts versus Wheelen et al., 1799 — 3 U.S. 506 · caselaw · US
General
Roberts versus Wheelen et al.
3 U.S. 5063 Dall. 506·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1799·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
Roberts versus Wheelen et al.
[MAJORITY]
THE Plaintiff had obtained a verd’uft; but a new trial was granted, upon condition, that a judgment fhould be entered as a fecurity, for whatever might be ultimately recovered. On the fecond trial, The Court inftruited the Jury,that where» judgment was given merely as a fecurity, the inte reft ought not to be calculated on the amount of the judgment (which included principal and intereft) but only on the fum originally due.