Richter v. Cummings
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder county: Of July Term 1868, No. 131. This was a scire facias sur judgment to May Term 1866, by Frederick Richter, guardian of Martha E. Richter, for her use and now for the use of John P. Richter against Elizabeth Richter, Albert Cummings and Louisa Cummings. The defendants pleaded payment with leave, &c., and “nul tiel record.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder county: Of July Term 1868, No. 131. This was a scire facias sur judgment to May Term 1866, by Frederick Richter, guardian of Martha E. Richter, for her use and now for the use of John P. Richter against Elizabeth Richter, Albert Cummings and Louisa Cummings. The defendants pleaded payment with leave, &c., and “nul tiel record.” On the trial before Woods, P. J., September 24th 1867, the plaintiff offered in evidence the record of a judgment. Frederick Richter, guardian of Martha E. Richter, against Elizabeth Richter, A. S. Cummings, L. E. Cummings…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by
Thompson, C. J.
The principle is undeniable that a sci. fa. sur judgment must follow the original judgment in amount, date and parties: Grenell v. Sharp, 4 Wh. 344, and authorities therein referred to. A failure in this respect is decisive against the admissibility of the record when there is a plea of nul tiel record. The replication habetur tale reeordwm would at once be disproved by a judgment different from that recited in the sci. fa. This was just the difficulty here. The name of John P. Richter, one of the defendants in the original judgment, was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Grenell v. SharpSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- New York Casualty Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
- Warner v. Warner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1957