Wells v. Bentley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error from the Common Pleas.of Bradford county. July 6. One point only arose on this record. The plaintiffs sued on an insolvent bond, on which one of the obligees had been discharged from arrest, and his application as an insolvent dismissed.
Read the full summary
Error from the Common Pleas.of Bradford county. July 6. One point only arose on this record. The plaintiffs sued on an insolvent bond, on which one of the obligees had been discharged from arrest, and his application as an insolvent dismissed. The bond had been taken and approved by the deputy or clerk in the prothonotary’s office; and the court (Conyngham, President J.) considering he had no authority, and consequently that the bond was void, directed a verdict for defendants. The legislature, in conferring the authority on the prothonotary, intended it to be exercised as other acts are done…
1Per curiam
The prothonotary’s approval of the bond is required for the creditor’s protection; and it is a common law maxim, that any one may forego a legal advantage given to himself. The creditor did forego the right of approval in this instance, by the very act of suing on the bond as a valid one; and it is immaterial, therefore, whether the act of approval be judicial, or susceptible of performance by a deputy, as it is clear, that the omission of it by the prothonotary or his clerk, or by both, could not be insisted upon as a defeasance, after the bond had done its office in setting the insolvent…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stroop v. GrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841