Leiper v. Levis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware county, where the respective parties agreed, that these cases should be united, and the annexed statement be considered in the nature of a special verdict, found on the trial of each of these cases by a jury sworn to trj’ all the issues joined between the different parties.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware county, where the respective parties agreed, that these cases should be united, and the annexed statement be considered in the nature of a special verdict, found on the trial of each of these cases by a jury sworn to trj’ all the issues joined between the different parties. If upon this statement of facts, the court should be of opinion that Thomas Leiper was entitled to the proceeds of the sale by the administrators, their judgment to be entered in his fa-* vour in the suit against the administrators for the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The practice of Pennsylvania is too well settled to be now shaken, that a judgment may be entered, or execution issued, after the death of the defendant, and that the execution has relation to the first day of the preceding term. This legal fiction works no injustice between the parties themselves, or their legal representatives, and may be justified by the consideration that the practice facilitates the collection of debts, certainly due, from an estate, acknowledged to be solvent. If We were now, for the first time, to consider whether…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bosler's Administrators v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- M'Millan v. RedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Turner v. HauserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833