Thomas v. Mann
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Bedford county. This was a scire facias to x-evive a judgment in favour of Job Mann, administrator of the estate of Joseph S. Morrison, against Nicholas Crysher and Michael Thomas.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Bedford county. This was a scire facias to x-evive a judgment in favour of Job Mann, administrator of the estate of Joseph S. Morrison, against Nicholas Crysher and Michael Thomas. The defendants pleaded usury, payment with leave, &c., and Michael Thomas filed a specification of special matter of defence, in which he alleged that he was the surety of Crysher in the judgment, and that the plaintiff had a sufficient lien against Orysher’s real estate, but suffered it to expire, and that such real estate had been afterwards sold, and brought a sum sufficient to have…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Woodward, J.
That the learned judge was in error in ruling that notice given by a surety to the counsel of an absentee creditor was insufficient to compel the institution of proceedings against the principal debtor, is proved by what was decided in Wetzel v. Sponsler’s Executors, 6 Harris 460, and is indeed frankly admitted by the counsel of defendant in error. But it is said the defendant was not entitled to prove such notice, because it was not contained in his specification of special matter. And true it is it was not. The notice specified three…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- In the Interest of T.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Millili v. Alan Wood Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran CongregationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.