Hartman v. Stahl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Writ of Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county.. In that Court it was an action of ejectment, by Joseph Stahl, against Elizabeth Hartman, Mary Brokins and William Ho-sack, for a tract of land claimed by the plaintiff under a sheriff’s sale.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Writ of Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county.. In that Court it was an action of ejectment, by Joseph Stahl, against Elizabeth Hartman, Mary Brokins and William Ho-sack, for a tract of land claimed by the plaintiff under a sheriff’s sale. The'cause was arbitrated under the act of assembly of the 20th March, 1810, and an award having been made in favor of the plaintiff, Elizabeth Hartman, one of the defendants only entered an appeal, took the oath required, and entered into the recognizance to prosecute the appeal with effect, &c. The counsel for the defendants moved…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J
If one of several defendants, make the affidavit required, by the act regulating arbitrations, and the recognizance be for all the defendants, the appeal will stand for all. But if either of them come into Court and desire to be severed, he may be seyered, and the appeal will go on, in the name of the others. La Fitte v. La Fitte, et al. 2 Serg. & Rawle, 107. Gallagher v. Jackson, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 492. Further than this we cannot go. Elizabeth Hartman took the oath, and entered into the recognizance, with bail for herself alone, it therefore,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gallagher v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- La Fitte v. La FitteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815