Shank v. Warfel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to Lancaster county the case was thus: The defendant in error, Jacob Warfel, administrator of Daniel Lingefelter, brought a suit against Rudolph Shank, before John Good, Esq. a justice of the peace, who gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for eighty-one dollars forty ceñís.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to Lancaster county the case was thus: The defendant in error, Jacob Warfel, administrator of Daniel Lingefelter, brought a suit against Rudolph Shank, before John Good, Esq. a justice of the peace, who gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff for eighty-one dollars forty ceñís. The defendant entered an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, to August term, 1S21, having previously entered into a recognizance before the magistrate, in the following terms: “ Rudolph Shank, the principal, brings Daniel Hess as bail, to be conditioned for the defendant’s appearance, in…
1Per curiam
This action was brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, before a justice of the peace, *206who gave judgment for the plaintiff. Rudolph Shank, (the defendant below,) appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, who dismissed the appeal, because the recognizance of bail was not in conformity to the act of assembly.
It appears that the appeal was'entered to August term, 1821. The motion for a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, was not made by the counsel for the'plaintiff until the 10th of May, 1823, and on the ISth September, 1823, after argument, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Beidman v. VandersliceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830