Christy v. Bohlen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The defendant in error having obtained a judgment against Holahan the plaintiff in error entered into a recognisance for stay of execution.
Read the full summary
The defendant in error having obtained a judgment against Holahan the plaintiff in error entered into a recognisance for stay of execution. A scire facias having issued thereon, the defendant filed air affidavit of defence, stating, «In the original suit, wherein deponent became surety, the plaintiff issued execution, to wit: a writ of fieri facias, June Term, 1845, No. 155, whereupon a levy was made, and enough money collected by the sheriff to pay the debt, interest, and costs in that case; a copy of the sheriff’s return to said writ is hereto annexed, but for greater certainty the deponent…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
We are all of opinion, that the affidavit of defence was sufficient. The amount of the judgment in the original action having been made on the fi. fa., by a sale of the defendant’s goods, and in the hands of the sheriff was a substantial satisfaction of the recognisance of bail for stay of execution. Milliken v. Brown, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 188; 1 Rawle, 392. Where the sheriff returns that he has sold goods to the amount of' a certain sum, by virtue of an execution, he is liable for the same. The utmost the defendant below was liable for, if his.affidavit was true, was the costs of the scire…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Milliken v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823