Miller v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY S. THOMPSON ET AL., USE PLAINTIEES, FROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE EAYETTE COUNTY. No. 40 July Term 1890, Sup.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY S. THOMPSON ET AL., USE PLAINTIEES, FROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE EAYETTE COUNTY. No. 40 July Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 194 December Term 1888, C. P. On November 2, 1888, to the number and term of the court below, above given, a- scire facias was issued to revive a judgment entered on August 4, 1883, to No. 164 September Term 1883, in favor of William J. Miller against Thomas D. Miller, for $4,331.69. The record, of the original judgment showed that on August 14, 1883, the plaintiff had assigned $2,500 of it to Samuel Thompson and Bridget Thompson, and that on…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Mitchell:
The judgment of revival is entered upon what purports to be an agreement for an amicable scire facias. But the alleged agreement is a nullity, because the only judgment it authorizes is one against the defendant, and the defendant has not signed the agreement. The judgment that was actually entered on the agreement, against the plaintiff, was equally bad, because the agreement, even if it had been otherwise valid, did not authorize any such judgment. On the face of the record, therefore, as it stood at the time, the judgment of revival was in law not merely…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Palmer v. GillespieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Wesner v. Stein & GreenawaltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Lawson v. McCartneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Com'rs of Rouse Estate v. Poor DirectorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888