Sicard v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia, in an action on the case brought by Peterson against Sicard., in the Court below, which was arbitrated under the act of 20th March, 1810. An award was made of “ the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars to the plaintiff, “ on condition of his giving possession to the defendant of “ the goods, chain machinery, and all other articles belong- being requested by the Court to proceed first, contended,…
Read the full summary
In ERROR. ERROR to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia, in an action on the case brought by Peterson against Sicard., in the Court below, which was arbitrated under the act of 20th March, 1810. An award was made of “ the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars to the plaintiff, “ on condition of his giving possession to the defendant of “ the goods, chain machinery, and all other articles belong- being requested by the Court to proceed first, contended, that it was the duty of the defendant below; to have appealed, or filed exceptions, and that no writ of error lies. He…
1Per curiam
We cannot hear an argument now, whether a writ of error lies on a report filed by arbitrators, under the ' compulsory arbitration act. It has been decided more than once, and the law must now be taken as settled.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tieghman C. J.
The report of the referees becomes a judgment, when entered on the docket of the prothonotary. Every judgment must be certain, but in this report there is no certainty. The defendant, Sicard, is to pay to the plaintiff a sum of money, on condition, that the plaintiff delivers to him the goods, chain machinery, and all other…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Woglam v. BurnesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1804