Clippinger v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. The facts of this case were presented to the court of Common pleas of Cumberland county, in the shape of a special verdict, which was removed to this court by the defendant below by a writ of error. Robert Miller, assigneee off • Lyon and Webster, v. John Clippinger, Esq. high sheriff of the county of Cumberland.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The facts of this case were presented to the court of Common pleas of Cumberland county, in the shape of a special verdict, which was removed to this court by the defendant below by a writ of error. Robert Miller, assigneee off • Lyon and Webster, v. John Clippinger, Esq. high sheriff of the county of Cumberland. In the court of common pleas of Cumberland county.- The following, facts are agreed on by .the parties to be considered in the’ nature of a special verdict; either party to be at liberty to-take a writ of error within twenty days after judgment may be rendered, but not…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
Two questions arise in the case stated. First, whether the revival of a judgment, by Amicable scire facias post annum et diem, creates a lien upon the property of the defendant, .acquired after the original judgment.
And, secondly, whether a scire facias continues the lien upon the land, the terre tenants not having been made parties, no writ having been served upon them.
The first question has been virtually decided in Berryhill v. Wells, 5 Bin. 56, and in Fries v. Watson, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 220. In some respects we have departed from the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Berryhill v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Fries v. WatsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819