Shoemaker v. Nesbit
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, in trespass vi et armis, in which the jury gave a verdict for the defendant, and the court entered judgment with treble costs.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Perry county. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, in trespass vi et armis, in which the jury gave a verdict for the defendant, and the court entered judgment with treble costs. The charge of the court below to the jury, which the plaintiff excepted to, states the points of law arising there, and was as follows;— Charge of the Court. — “ We are of opinion, if the evidence is true, that the court of appeal was legally constituted, and had jurisdiction of the case of Samuel Shoemaker. His name appearing on the roll of the company, being…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court (Huston, J. dissenting on the first point,) was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
— It is conceded, that if the court martial had jurisdiction, the defendant was justifiable in causing its sentence to be executed. That it was legally constituted, and had jurisdiction of the offence, is not disputed. But it is alleged, that the plaintiff was not de jure, a member of the company; consequently, that the court had not jurisdiction of his person; and hence, it is inferred, that the *203sentence is void, and the defendant a trespasser. This inference is not supported by authority, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Coney v. OwenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Welsh v. AnthonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Murphy v. Factors' & Traders' InsuranceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1881