Brazier v. Banning
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of covenant to March Term, 1850, by A. J. Brazier v. W. L. Banning, to recover ground-rent. October 31,1850, it was agreed between the parties that a case be stated for the opinion of the Court, in the nature of a special verdict.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of covenant to March Term, 1850, by A. J. Brazier v. W. L. Banning, to recover ground-rent. October 31,1850, it was agreed between the parties that a case be stated for the opinion of the Court, in the nature of a special verdict. It was in substance as follows:— On the 29th October, 1846, Amable J. Brazier, the plaintiff, conveyed by indenture to William L. Banning, the defendant, his heirs and assigns, seven contiguous lots or pieces of ground, situate on the north side of Spruce street, in Hamilton village, in the county of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, by
Black, C. J.
In Dodd v. Crozier, decided at Pittsburgh, last September, we held that where judgment had been taken by the plaintiff fob that part of the claim which the affidavit of defence admitted to be due, and execution had been issued, and the money collected by the sheriff, the balance of the claim could not be proceeded for, but must be considered as abandoned. The first judgment is a bar to a further recovery for the same cause of action. The only difference between that case and the present one is, that there an execution was issued, and here…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Kinney v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stedman v. PoterieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891