Commonwealth v. Magee
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 203, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiffs, from orders of C. P., No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 4,508, discharging rules for leave to file an amended statement, and to compel the filing of a second affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of Charles Beckingham v. James E. Magee et al. Assumpsit on a bond. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 203, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiffs, from orders of C. P., No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 4,508, discharging rules for leave to file an amended statement, and to compel the filing of a second affidavit of defense in case of Commonwealth to use of Charles Beckingham v. James E. Magee et al. Assumpsit on a bond. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were orders discharging the rules referred to in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
On September 2, 1902, the plaintiff brought suit on a bond given to the commonwealth by James E. Magee, administrator, *258with Robert J. Barr as surety, conditioned for the faithful appropriation of the proceeds of the sale of real estate of Margaret Dalton, deceased, for the payment of debts.
The plaintiff suggested an award made to him by the orphans’ court of Philadelphia county for the amount of 1889.70, with interest thereon from March 16, 1892, to be paid by defendant Magee, administrator, and his default in complying with said order of the court. Subsequently the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Yost v. DavisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Lauer v. Lauer Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- National Transit Co. v. United States Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- City of Philadelphia ex rel. Achuff v. ChristmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Commonwealth v. MageeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. MageeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908