Penrose v. Pawling
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county. The following case was stated for the opinion of the court in the nature of a special verdict, either party to have the right to a writ of error; To November Term 1837, No. 34. George H. Pawling, the defendant in this case, as administrator of Thomas Ferguson, deceased, brought an action on the case in assumpsit in the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, against Morris Penrose, executor of the last will and testament of Samuel…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county. The following case was stated for the opinion of the court in the nature of a special verdict, either party to have the right to a writ of error; To November Term 1837, No. 34. George H. Pawling, the defendant in this case, as administrator of Thomas Ferguson, deceased, brought an action on the case in assumpsit in the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, against Morris Penrose, executor of the last will and testament of Samuel Penrose deceased, the plaintiff above named, which action, at the instance of and upon a rule entered by Pawling as…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
Pawling, as administrator, sued Penrose, as executor, in assumpsit; and the cause being referred to arbitrators, an award was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for $173.97. The defendant, Penrose, appealed, entered into recognisance and paid the costs of the appeal. On trial the plaintiff Pawling became nonsuit; and the question is, whether the defendant, Penrose, is entitled to a return of these costs. This question is raised by a case stated, in which Penrose is plaintiff and Pawling defendant.
We are of opinion that Penrose is entitled…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Muntorf v. MuntorfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Bellas v. OysterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Pratt v. NagleeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lynch v. WebsterSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891