Glenn v. Copeland
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county. A. S. T. Copeland against John Glenn. This was an action of debt upon a recognizance of bail. There was no declaration filed. The docket entry was as follows: “ 2d February 1841, judgment for plaintiff, sum due liquidated at seventy-four dollars and sixty cents.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county. A. S. T. Copeland against John Glenn. This was an action of debt upon a recognizance of bail. There was no declaration filed. The docket entry was as follows: “ 2d February 1841, judgment for plaintiff, sum due liquidated at seventy-four dollars and sixty cents.” This judgment cannot be supported, inasmuch as there was no declaration filed, no condition of the recognizance set out, no breach assigned; and it does not appear that there was any trial by the court. It would be presuming too much to support a judgment without any of the constituent…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
After going to trial on the merits, the court will not reverse a judgment because' there is no plea nor issue. Sauerman v. Weckerly, (17 Serg. & Rawle 116). And this principle is as applicable to an issue in law as of fact, because both come within the same mischief. Here there was a summons in debt on recognizance, plea nul tiel record, but no declaration or replication. The judgment is “ for plaintiff, sum due to be liquidated by prothonotary: cesset, &c., sum due liquidated by the prothonotary at $74.” It does not directly appear, which in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sauerman v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barker v. McCrearySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Almy v. DanielsSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1886