Reinholdt v. Alberti
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
L EVY, upon a former day, obtained a rule up.on the plaintiff to shew cause why a discontinuance should not be entered in this suit; and now, upon the return of the rule, it appeared that the action was brought to March term 1803, and that on the 14th March 1804, by order of the defendant’s attorney, a non pros, was entered for want of a narr, agreeably to the rule of 3d September 1802. Afterwards, on the 1st January 1806, the same attorney by writing agreed that the non…
Read the full summary
L EVY, upon a former day, obtained a rule up.on the plaintiff to shew cause why a discontinuance should not be entered in this suit; and now, upon the return of the rule, it appeared that the action was brought to March term 1803, and that on the 14th March 1804, by order of the defendant’s attorney, a non pros, was entered for want of a narr, agreeably to the rule of 3d September 1802. Afterwards, on the 1st January 1806, the same attorney by writing agreed that the non pros. should be taken off. A declaration was filed on the same day, and the cause thus reinstated upon the docket. The…
1Per curiam
We have no doubt. If the attorney has done wrong, he is answerable for it. But undoubtedly b) the practice of Pennsylvania, the authority of the defendant’s attorney is competent to restore an action after non pros. The authority of an attorney is not limited here in the same manner that it is in England. For a payment to the plaintiff’s attorney, long after judgment, and without execution, has been held good upon argument. Let the rule be discharged.
Rule discharged.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Hageman v. SalisberrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Swartz ex rel. Stuart v. D. S. Morgan & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Kissick v. HunterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Huntzinger v. DevlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Campbell v. KentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.