Shaw v. Irwin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Fayette county. This was a scire facias sur recognisance. An action of partition was brought by Lewis Mitchell against M. W. Irwin and others — the defendants pleaded non tenent insimul. The plaintiff was ruled to enter security for costs, and Shaw, the defendant, entered into recognisance in the sum of one hundred dollars, as security for plaintiff. A verdict and judgment were entered in the partition in favour of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Fayette county. This was a scire facias sur recognisance. An action of partition was brought by Lewis Mitchell against M. W. Irwin and others — the defendants pleaded non tenent insimul. The plaintiff was ruled to enter security for costs, and Shaw, the defendant, entered into recognisance in the sum of one hundred dollars, as security for plaintiff. A verdict and judgment were entered in the partition in favour of the defendants. This suit was brought to l’ecover plaintiff’s costs. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lewis, C. J.
After some conflicting decisions, it was settled in equity that the costs of issuing and executing the commission, in partition, and of making out the title to the several parts of the estate, should be borne by the parties in the proportions in which they were respectively entitled to the estate: Calmady v. Calmady, 17 Ves. 555, note 1; Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533. But no costs were given up to the hearing of the bill: Baring v. Nash, 1 Ves. & Bea. 554. For it was thought that one party ought not to bear any portion of the charges…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hoedt v. HoedtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915