Commonwealth v. Hultz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common- Pleas of Allegheny county. In an 'ejectment, pending in 1§17 in the Common Pleas, against Wilkins, the defendant dying, Eliza*Wilkins by her guardian was substituted. The entry was made on the trial list by the judge,-but not transferred to the docket.' Judgment having been entered for plaintiff, execution for costs issued, and the property of the substituted defendant-'was sold.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common- Pleas of Allegheny county. In an 'ejectment, pending in 1§17 in the Common Pleas, against Wilkins, the defendant dying, Eliza*Wilkins by her guardian was substituted. The entry was made on the trial list by the judge,-but not transferred to the docket.' Judgment having been entered for plaintiff, execution for costs issued, and the property of the substituted defendant-'was sold. On ejectment by hef, in 1845, this defect was discovered; when the court was moved to make-the entry nunc pro tunc, which was refused. ; A rule for á mandamus was then applied for, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
Bell, J.:It is now so firmly settled by repeated and unvarying decisions, that although the Supreme Court may, by the writ of mandamus, order an inferior judicial officer to proceed to judgment, it had no power to compel him to decide according to the dictate of any judgment than his own; that it almost savors of affectation to cite particular cases in proof of the rule. Avoiding the cumbersome task of even referring to the numerous authorities which might be collected on this subject, I may yet be permitted to mention our own cases of Commonwealth v. Judges of Common Pleas, 3 Binn. 272;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Griffith v. CochranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- Cheriot v. FoussatSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Drexel v. ManSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843