M'Cullough v. Guetner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. WRIT of Error to the Common Pleas of Crawford coun~ ty. The record shewed that a summons issued from the court below at the suit of Guetner against the two M'Gulloughs, and that it was returned se,ved as to George, and n~hil habet as to Robert.
Read the full summary
In Error. WRIT of Error to the Common Pleas of Crawford coun~ ty. The record shewed that a summons issued from the court below at the suit of Guetner against the two M'Gulloughs, and that it was returned se,ved as to George, and n~hil habet as to Robert. Mr. Irvine, an attorney, entered his name upon the docket, without restriction, opposite to the names of the defendants; and he afterwards signed as their attorney an agreement, in which the action was entitled against both defendants, and which referred to certain persons all matters in dispute in the above cause. The referees awarded in…
1Per curiam
The judgment below must be affirmed, because it sufficiently appears that the attorney appeared for both the defendants. But the execution was erroneous, because the plaintiff, having levied upon land, held an inquest which determined that the rents &c. were sufficient to pay in seven years, and had that writ returned and filed, had no power without the court’s permission to take out a new execution. This has been the practice and understanding of the courts of Nisi Prius, and great inconveniences might ensue from a contrary practice; because the plaintiff might set aside the proceedings and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Bingham v. Board of Supervisors of Winona CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Allen v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Vandegrift v. Knights Road Industrial Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Vandegrift v. KNIGHTS RD. IND. PARK, INC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.