Commonwealth v. Magee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1909, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1902, No. 4,508, discharging rule to strike off discontinuance in case of Commonwealth to use of Charles Beckingham v. James E. Magee and Robert J. Barr. Rule to strike off discontinuance. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the order of the court discharging rule to strike off discontinuance.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The appellant is the surety on a bond given by an administrator in 1891 to secure the accounting by him for the proceeds of the sale of the real estate of the decedent made by order of court for the payment of debts. An action was brought upon the bond by the use plaintiff while exceptions to the allowance of his claim were pending and before a final decree had been entered in the orphans’ court. On an appeal to this court it was held that the action was prematurely brought: see Com. v. Magee, 220 Pa. 201. The use plaintiff then discontinued the action without leave…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Consolidated National Bank v. McManusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Commonwealth ex rel. D. C. Hyde & Co. v. CopeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Commonwealth v. MageeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bausewine v. Norristown Herald, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Brothers v. Girard National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Lusas v. St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Lamb v. GreenhouseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Davis v. HillmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.