Meason's Estate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL from the decree of the common pleas of Fayette county. The question reserved in this case at the preceding term, whether interest may be calculated anew on a judgment of revival, under the act of 1798, (see the report 4 Watts 347,) having come on for argument, was now spoken to by Jlustin and Ewing in the affirmative, who relied on Fries v. Watson, 5 Serg. ¿y Rawle 220, and Berryhill v. Wells, 5 Finn. 60; and by Dawson in the negative.
1Per curiam
By our practice, judgment on the scire facias post annum et diem, is quod recuperet, and bears interest; but it is supposed that a judgment of revival, in the words of our statute, “during another period of five years,” is otherwise. We consider the point as having been effectively, though informally, settled by Fries v. Watson. It does not appear in the report of that case, what was the form of the writ, but it was probably the old scire facias, under the statute of Westm. 2, as many years elapsed before the profession became familiar in practice with the writ directed by the act of 1798.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stewart v. Peterson's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Shaeffer v. ChildSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Bailey v. BaileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Mohn v. HiesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Gabelia v. Benes, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1960