Baughn v. Benson
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 305, Oct. T., 1920, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1918, No. 3833, discharging rule to show cause why sheriff should not pay into court certain money in his hands in the case of Charles W. Baughn v. Nathan Benson and Harry Fine. Rule to show cause why money paid to sheriff should not be paid into court. Before Monaghan, J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court discharged the rule. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 305, Oct. T., 1920, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1918, No. 3833, discharging rule to show cause why sheriff should not pay into court certain money in his hands in the case of Charles W. Baughn v. Nathan Benson and Harry Fine. Rule to show cause why money paid to sheriff should not be paid into court. Before Monaghan, J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court discharged the rule. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against the defendants in an action of trespass. The judgment was one directing the payment of money and section 6 of the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, required that, in order that an appeal might operate as a supersedeas, the appellants should give bond in double the amount of the judgment and all costs accrued or likely to accrue. The defendants appealed from that judgment to this court without giving any bond whatever, in which appeal we have this day filed an opinion affirming the judgment of the court below. After the defendants…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smead v. StuartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900