Groff v. Ressler's Administrator
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common. Pleas of Lancaster county. Samuel Groff, the plaintiff below, and plaintiff in error, brought suit against Ephraim Ressler, before a justice of the peac.e, on the 7th day of May, 1852, on an account for work and labour done. The summons was served on the same day, to appear on the 11th of the same month.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common. Pleas of Lancaster county. Samuel Groff, the plaintiff below, and plaintiff in error, brought suit against Ephraim Ressler, before a justice of the peac.e, on the 7th day of May, 1852, on an account for work and labour done. The summons was served on the same day, to appear on the 11th of the same month. On the day of appearance the cause was postponed until the 15th of May, 1852. On the 11th Ressler brought suit against Groff in his own name, before the same justice, on a note under seal in favour of Hildebrand & Mayers for $34.19, and endorsed in blank by the payees to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
The Hundred Dollar Act requires mutual claims to be settled in one action; but this does not absolutely prevent parties from carrying on separate suits at the same time before a justice of the peace for their mutual demands, and where this is done without objection both proceedings are valid.
Such was the origin of this case, and both parties obtained judgments for their respective demands. But Ressler was dissatisfied with the judgment against him, and appealed. What does his appeal mean, except'that the matter tried by the magistrate had…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Filbert v. HawkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Stewart v. United States InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by1 opinion
- Harmony Creamery Co. v. BickertonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914