Legal Opinion

Smead v. Stuart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 5, 1900PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Rule to show cause why supersedeas of execution should not be allowed. Appeal from common pleas of Cumberland county.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

Judgment for $9,069.02 oil scire facias sur mortgage was entered on August 3, 1899, for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. On August 17, the defendant filed an appeal in this court, giving a recognizance in the sum of $300 to cover costs. The plaintiff thereupon issued a levari on' his judgment, which on motion the court below refused to stay. On application to the Chief Justice during vacation the present rule to supersede the execution was allowed.

*579Tlie substantial contention in the ease is upon the sufficiency of the bond in an amount that will secure…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Koecker v. Fidelity TrustSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Samples v. RobinsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Spang v. MattesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  3. Wilkinson v. United Parcel Service of Pennsylvania, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. City of Philadelphia v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Baughn v. BensonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API