Langer v. Parish
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. ERROR to the Court,of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. This case came into the Court of Common Pleas by appeal from' ¿judgment rendered by an alderman, in favour of Robert Parish, plaintiff below, against Joseph Langer. The summons was issued by the alderman on the 1st and was returnable the 6th May, 1820, and judgment was rendered on the 8th.
Read the full summary
In ERROR. ERROR to the Court,of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county. This case came into the Court of Common Pleas by appeal from' ¿judgment rendered by an alderman, in favour of Robert Parish, plaintiff below, against Joseph Langer. The summons was issued by the alderman on the 1st and was returnable the 6th May, 1820, and judgment was rendered on the 8th. The declaration in the Common Pleas stated the assumption to have been made by the defendant on the 17th May, 1820. that the cause of action was laid after the commencement of the suit and even after the appeal, and cited Miller v.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
This case cannot be distinguished from *135Miller v. Ralston, where the judgment was reversed, because the declaration in the Court of Common Pleas laid the promise of the defendant, at a time subsequent to the entering of the appeal. 1 Serg. Rawle, 309. The very same point was decided, in McLaughlin v. Parker, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 144. In Miller v. Ralston, the Court refused a venire de novo, because there had been no error in the trial of the cause ; and it has been refused in other similar cases. Sending back a record to be amended, is always matter of discretion. If there had been a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Laughlin v. ParkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
3Cited by1 opinion
- Griffith v. EshelmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835