Watmough v. Francis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Dec. 13, 15 — Jan. 3. The plaintiff declared in debt for the penalty of a'bond.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Dec. 13, 15 — Jan. 3. The plaintiff declared in debt for the penalty of a'bond. On oyer, the condition set out recited a fi. fa. issued at the suit of C. Francis, tested on the 6th Sept., commanding the sheriff (plaintiff) to levy the sum of $12,875, &c., of the goods, &c., of J. P. Norris, “ and whereas the sheriff has been notified that the goods levied on by virtue of said fi. fa. are not the property of defendant, but of J. R. Thompson et at, now if C. Francis, &c., shall at all times save, keep harmless, and indemnify the sheriff and his…
1Opinion of the Court
Rogers, J.,
(after stating ' the case.) — The points raised on the special plea we are relieved from considering, as it is agreed that the only question on which the opinion of this court is desired, is whether there is any breach of the bond; that is, whether the plaintiff, as sheriff, did execute the writ, did attach and make sale of the goods, according to the true intent and meaning of the condition.
As it forms part of the case, I will premise that the fact that the goods were seized on the first writ, before the second was put *213in the hands of the sheriff, that the action of the sheriff…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nagle v. StrohSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Girard Bank v. Philadelphia & Norristown Rail Road, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1841
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dixon v. White Sewing M. Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1889
- Mansfield v. BellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Miller v. WesterhoffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900