Ham v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne county: Of January Term 1878, No. 77. This was a feigned issue directed on opening a judgment, wherein William A. Smith was plaintiff and Thomas J. Ham and others defendants. In September 1876, Smith was nominated for the legislature, together with A. R. Howe, by the democratic convention of Wayne county.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne county: Of January Term 1878, No. 77. This was a feigned issue directed on opening a judgment, wherein William A. Smith was plaintiff and Thomas J. Ham and others defendants. In September 1876, Smith was nominated for the legislature, together with A. R. Howe, by the democratic convention of Wayne county. During the same month W. M. Nelson, a democrat, and F. W. Farnham, a republican, were nominated for the legislature, by a body styling itself an anti-court-house or taxpayer’s convention. The democratic county committee proposed to Smith that he…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
The rule to open the judgment in this case, was made absolute by consent of the parties, and no conditions were imposed upon the defendants. The plaintiff must therefore prove his case as on a new trial: Carron v. Coulter, 2 Grant 131. Hence, the court erred in holding the judgment itself to be an important fact in the issue trying. The order opening the judgment vacated it, except for the purposes of lien, and whether the plaintiff was ever again to recover it depended upon the case which should be presented to the court and jury. The only question we have before us is, whether the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 2018
- Pile v. ThompsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Harbaugh v. ButnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- R & R Trucking Co. v. Lewis Steel Products Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967