Bowman v. Sharp & Carman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Lycoming county. Sharp and Carman against Foster, Bowman and Forsythe. This action was brought upon the insolvent bond of Foster, in which Bowman and Forsythe were sureties. The plaintiffs filed a statement and referred the cause to arbitrators who made a report for the plaintiff for 378 dollars 45 cents. A motion was made in the court below to set aside the award on two grounds.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Lycoming county. Sharp and Carman against Foster, Bowman and Forsythe. This action was brought upon the insolvent bond of Foster, in which Bowman and Forsythe were sureties. The plaintiffs filed a statement and referred the cause to arbitrators who made a report for the plaintiff for 378 dollars 45 cents. A motion was made in the court below to set aside the award on two grounds. First, because there was no declaration filed; and secondly, because it was not the subject of reference under the arbitration law. The court below (Scott, president) overruled the objections.
1Per curiam
A bail bond was thought an unfit subject of compulsory arbitration in Roop v. Meek, 6 Serg. & Rawle 542, and Hersberger v. Venus, 3 Penns. Rep. 396, because it is a subject of discretionary relief to be administered only by the court; but in Kelley v. Stepney, 4 Watts 69, an insolvent’s bond was considered as an ordinary obligation to do a particular act, whose performance alone can exonerate the bail, who is rather a surety in the strict sense of the word: insomuch, that a surrender before the day does not discharge him. It is, therefore, on a footing with a recognizance of bail in error,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kelly v. StepneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Roop v. MeekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
- Stevenson v. DochertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pettit v. WingateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855