Forrester v. Alexander
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. William G. Alexander and I. Addison Stockton against Robert H. Forrester and William D. Smith. This was an action of debt upon an insolvent bond in the penalty of $150, reciting the fact that Robert H. Forrester was in custody on an execution in favour of Alexander & Stockton, “ for the sum of $76.62, with interest and costs of suit,” and with the condition that he should be and appear at the next Court of Common Pleas, &c.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. William G. Alexander and I. Addison Stockton against Robert H. Forrester and William D. Smith. This was an action of debt upon an insolvent bond in the penalty of $150, reciting the fact that Robert H. Forrester was in custody on an execution in favour of Alexander & Stockton, “ for the sum of $76.62, with interest and costs of suit,” and with the condition that he should be and appear at the next Court of Common Pleas, &c. The declaration was upon the penalty of the bond, and set out the condition and breach of it; to the damage of the…
1Per curiam
— The principle adopted in Ancora v. Burns, (5 Binn. 522); Hancock v. Barton, (1 Serg. & Rawle 269), and Byrne v. Gordon, (2 P. A. B. 271), is, that where the actual demand is indefinite, recourse is to be had to the demand laid; for so much must appear to the eye of the court to be in contest. Here the declaration exhibits a legal demand of $150, as the penalty of a bond, and the sum sued for, which must be taken for the debt in the first instance. But the condition was set out in the declaration, and the sum to be recovered for the breach of it was the amount of the execution on which the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ancora v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Hancock v. BartonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
3Cited by2 opinions
- Porter v. Zeuger Milk Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Tarbox v. KennonTexas Supreme Court · 1848