Sterrett v. Ramsay
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. This was an action of debt by Thomas Craighead, administrator of John Sterrett deceased, against Sterrett Ramsay and William Ramsay. ■ The cause was arbitrated, and an award made in favour of the plaintiff for 818 dollars. December 23d 1824, Sterrett Ramsay, one of the defendants, appealed and entered into the recognizance, with security, according to the act of assembly.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. This was an action of debt by Thomas Craighead, administrator of John Sterrett deceased, against Sterrett Ramsay and William Ramsay. ■ The cause was arbitrated, and an award made in favour of the plaintiff for 818 dollars. December 23d 1824, Sterrett Ramsay, one of the defendants, appealed and entered into the recognizance, with security, according to the act of assembly. After twenty days had elapsed, the plaintiff issued a fieri facias against William Ramsay the other defendant. A motion was then made to set aside the fieri facias, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
An amendment will not be permitted so as to make an appeal for all the defendants, on parol, testimony that it was the intention to appeal for all. Hartman v. Stahl, 2 Penns. Rep. 223. In the case at bar, Sterrett Ramsay supposed he was appealing as well for his co-defendant as himself. This may be conceded, and it may also be granted that William Ramsay intended the appeal should be so entered. It still amounts to an intention not carried into effect; and nothing more; and is not stronger in principle than Hartman v. Stahl. There is nothing,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fante v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Rosenbaum Co. v. Diskin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County1932