Dawson v. Ryan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THE fii’st of these cases was a replevin brought by Frederick Dawson and Philip Thomas Dawson, trading under the firm of William Dawson & Co., against Patrick Ryan and John W. Ryan, trading as P. Ryan & Son, and was tried at Nisi Prius in November 1842, before Judge Kennedy, who directed the jury to give a verdict for the defendants, which was accordingly done, and judgment was subsequently entered thereon.
Read the full summary
THE fii’st of these cases was a replevin brought by Frederick Dawson and Philip Thomas Dawson, trading under the firm of William Dawson & Co., against Patrick Ryan and John W. Ryan, trading as P. Ryan & Son, and was tried at Nisi Prius in November 1842, before Judge Kennedy, who directed the jury to give a verdict for the defendants, which was accordingly done, and judgment was subsequently entered thereon. The plaintiffs excepted, the judge sealed a bill of exceptions, and the case came into the court in bank on a certificate of error, according to the pi’ovisions of the Act of 26th of July…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
— In Dawson v. Ryan, the motion was to dismiss the case, because the appellant neglected to enter bail as required by the Act of the 26th July 1842, an Act relating to the Nisi Prius court, and in Stiles v. The Westchester Rail-road Company, because the record, &c. was not certified in time. The 6th section on which the questions arise, is in these words: “ And it shall be lawful for either party to take a bill of exceptions to any opinion or charge of the judge as is now practised and allowed in the Courts of Common Pleas of the State; and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vanlear v. VanlearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1803
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lauman v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Catherwood v. KonnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845