Commonwealth v. Carey
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 110, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1914, No. 57, refusing to stay execution in case of Commonwealth, to use of Lazar Jacobsohn, v. Frank A. Carey, et al., trading as Frank A. Carey & Co. Assumpsit on appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 110, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1914, No. 57, refusing to stay execution in case of Commonwealth, to use of Lazar Jacobsohn, v. Frank A. Carey, et al., trading as Frank A. Carey & Co. Assumpsit on appeal. The bond was in the following form: Lazar Jacobsohn v. Frank A. Carey, Joseph F. Newman and Joseph G. Carey, Copartners, trading as Frank A. Carey & Co. Municipal Court, February Term, 1914. No. 57. Frank A. Carey, Joseph F. Newman and Joseph G. Carey, Copartners Trading as Frank A. Carey Sc Co., having appealed…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kepi-iart, J.,
A consideration of this appeal on its merits shows that the appellant is not entitled to a reversal of any judgment or decree entered in the court below. The bond was given to prosecute an appeal to this court with effect. That means, it was to be prosecuted with success: Commonwealth, to use, v. Lenhart, 233 Pa. 526. It is asserted that the bond contained a recital that the original judgment on which the appeal acted as a supersedeas was entered against each of the defendants, when in fact, such was not the case. The judgment was entered against Frank A. Carey, Joseph…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. LenhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912