How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 April 1776, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 April 1776
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 28
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Decided
- 1776-04-01
Headnote
Township of Fallowfield v. Township of Marlborough. Poor. — Order of removal. It is not necessary that it should appear on the face of an order of removal, that there was an examination of the pauper, or of any other person. On certiorari to Chester, to remove an order and judgment of sessions, for the removal of James Heany. Exceptions taken to the proceedings below: That it did not appear the pauper had been examined; nor was any reason, set forth, why he was not: That natural justice required he should be heard, before he was removed. And the following cases were cited : 2 Salk. 488, to show the examination must be by two justices. 2 Str. 1092. s. p. And. 238; Sett. Cas. c. 18. But it was answered : 1st. That it was not necessary that the examination should appear on the .face of the order. Justices are not obliged to set forth evidence, or every little circumstance ; that when nothing is set forth which appears to be wrong, the court will make an intendment in favor of then-order. An order to a common intent good. 1 Str. 211. That it is not necessary to set forth the summons and examination of the party. Comb. 474; 1 Str. 630, 211; 2 Ld. Raym. 1406. 2d. That even if it was necessary, there are words in the order equivalent, viz., on due consideration, which implies due examination. 3 Burr. Set. Cas. Also the words due proof. Also, the words on the examination of Samuel Heany “ as otherwise.” That in the cases from Salkeld, there appeared a defect of examination on the order, it having been taken by one justice instead of two.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.465 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
¶ 1[majority — By the Court.]
¶ 2By the Court. No case can be shown, where an order was deemed bad, because the examination did not appear on the face of the order. Comb. 474, is a book of no great authority, and this case is contradicted by many others. We are of opinion, that it is not necessary that an examination should appear on the face of the order ; nor is it necessary that the examination of any person should be set forth. If any pauper was injured by a removal, *291] reme^7 might be *had here, on information; and though it will J not restore him, yet he might have complained to the sessions, where everything was open. The order of sessions confirmed with costs, See 1 Yeates 366; 2 Dall. 213; 1 Yeates 250; 5 Binn. 81; 1 S. & R. 387.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Township of Fallowfield v. Township of Marlborough” in the last three months, from GDELT.