Ebersoll v. Krug
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. An award of arbitrators in the Common Pleas is to be considered as a judgment of that court From the time of its entry upon tile docket, and as such subject to a writ of error.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. An award of arbitrators in the Common Pleas is to be considered as a judgment of that court From the time of its entry upon tile docket, and as such subject to a writ of error. THIS was an action of slander in the Common Pleas of Dauphin, which was referred to arbitrators under the act of 29th March 1809. The arbitrators filed their award in the office of the prothonotary on the 26th January 1810, finding twenty dollars damages in favour of Krug and wife the plaintiffs below, and on the same day the prothonotary, in conformity with the tenth section of the act, 9 St. Laws 128., made…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The defendant in error has moved to quash the writ of error in this case, and he contends that *529no judgment has been rendered, and therefore no writ of error lies. An award of arbitrators was made and returned to the prothonotary’s office, in pursuance of the act of 29th March 1809, and the prothonotary made the following entry on his docket, “judgment according to act of assembly.” The defendant in error supposes, that the prothonotary had no right to make such an entry; that although the report, when filed, was a lien on the defendant’s lands, yet it was not a judgment; that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lawton v. Commissioners of Highways ex rel. Town of CambridgeNew York Supreme Court · 1804
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re BrunoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Vankirk v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
- Zeigler v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1816
- Eames v. StilesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1864
- In Re: Magisterial District Judge Mark BrunoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.