Hall v. Haines
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 210, Oct. T., 1907, by defendants, from judgment quod computet of C. P. Lehigh County, October T., 1905, No. 25, in case of Francis L. Hall v. Alvin S. Haines and J. Martin Koons, trading as the Provident Slate Company. Action of account render. Before Trexler, P. J., sitting .without jury. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was the judgment of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The Act of April 4, 1831, P. L. 492, provides that the jury, in an action of account render, shall have full power to settle the accounts between the parties, and find in favor of the plaintiff, or one or more of the defendants, such sum or sums as shall appear to be due. When this act is proceeded under, a formal judgment quod computet is not necessary; the substance of such judgment is impliedly embraced in the general finding: McLean's Executors v. Wade, 53 Pa. 146. It would seem, however, not to be compulsory to proceed under that act, for by the Act of October 13, 1840, P. L.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McLean's Executors v. WadeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Barbara Gesell's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Tutton v. AddamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. Belmont Packing & Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Ehmling v. D. L. Ward Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Hyman v. Erie Concrete & Steel Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946