Hall & M'Kelvey v. Law
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. S. and A. Law against William Hall and Samuel M’Kelvey, trading in the name of Hall and M’Kelvey. Action on the case in assumpsit. The writ was returned served on M’Kelvey, and non est inventus as to Hall. Findlay appeared specially for M’Kelvey and pleaded non assumpsit. Van Amringe’s appearance was marked generally on the margin of the docket.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. S. and A. Law against William Hall and Samuel M’Kelvey, trading in the name of Hall and M’Kelvey. Action on the case in assumpsit. The writ was returned served on M’Kelvey, and non est inventus as to Hall. Findlay appeared specially for M’Kelvey and pleaded non assumpsit. Van Amringe’s appearance was marked generally on the margin of the docket. The cause was tried upon its merits, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for #684.05. The docket entry also showed that Findlay and Van Amringe had leave to withdraw their appearance,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
Although the writ is returned non est inventus as to Hall, yet there is a general appearance as to both defendants. There is, therefore, nothing in the case to distinguish it from Sauerman v. Weckerly, (17 Serg. & Rawle 116), where we refused to reverse a judgment after trial on the merits, because there was no plea nor issue. It is said that the attorneys had leave to withdraw their appearance. But it does not appear when leave was granted, whether before or after the judgment; and if we must judge from the record, we must suppose the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sauerman v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hunt's Heirs v. Ellison's HeirsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Vandegrift v. Knights Road Industrial Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Vandegrift v. KNIGHTS RD. IND. PARK, INC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980