Fotterall v. Floyd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ON a writ of error to the District Court for the city J county of Philadelphia, the case appeared to be thus : brought an action trespass quar.e clausum fregerunt, &c. to March Term, 1819, against Caleb Cridland, Benjamin Cridland, Robert Black, Peter Case, jun. Stephen E. Fotterall, and George F. Alberti, to which a general appearance was entered lor all the ants.
Read the full summary
In Error. ON a writ of error to the District Court for the city J county of Philadelphia, the case appeared to be thus : brought an action trespass quar.e clausum fregerunt, &c. to March Term, 1819, against Caleb Cridland, Benjamin Cridland, Robert Black, Peter Case, jun. Stephen E. Fotterall, and George F. Alberti, to which a general appearance was entered lor all the ants. On the 26th August, 1819, the two Cridlands pleaded, not guilty, and justification, with leave, &c., on which issue . . ., , , . , ., .. r , was joined, andón the same day a rule to plead in lour weeks, or judgment, was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
The counsel for the defendant in error, have moved to quash the writ because all the defendants below have not joined in it. It is an action of trespass, brought by John Floyd against the plaintiff in error, S. E. Fotterall, and five other persons. The plaintiff declared against all six of the defendants, and laid them under a rule to plead. Two of them pleaded to issue, upon which a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and damages assessed against those two only. Against the four others (of whom the plaintiff in error is one) judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andrews v. BosworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Gallagher v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815