Shuff v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. Nov. 2. The defendant appealed from a judgment of a justice in trover. The cause was arbitrated, under a rule of court, and in August, 1845, an award for defendant. A recognisance was then entered into by One Stemm, conditioned, in the event of a judgment for defendant, that plaintiff would pay all costs, «with. one dollar for each and every day that shall be lost by said defendant in attending to such appeal.”
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Fayette. Nov. 2. The defendant appealed from a judgment of a justice in trover. The cause was arbitrated, under a rule of court, and in August, 1845, an award for defendant. A recognisance was then entered into by One Stemm, conditioned, in the event of a judgment for defendant, that plaintiff would pay all costs, «with. one dollar for each and every day that shall be lost by said defendant in attending to such appeal.” The cause was again arbitrated, by agreement, and award for defendant. The court allowed plaintiff “ $9 for his daily pay,” in his bill of…
1Per curiam
The recognisance in this case was framed on the 80th section of the act of the 16th June, 1836 ; and it is void, because that section, being superseded by the first section of the act of the 20th March, 1845, was not in force during the pendency of this action. The latter section provides that in lieu of the bail theretofore required on appeals from judgments of justices and awards of arbitrators, the bail shall be absolute in double the probable amount of costs, accrued or likely to accrue, with one or more sureties, “ conditioned for the payment of all costs, accrued, or that may be legally…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hamilton v. HaridaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Hamilton v. HaridaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Swartz v. Capital Refrigeration, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1973