Commonwealth v. Fogelman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 174, Nov. T., 1896, by Harris Flomenhaft, from order of Q. S. Phila. Co., Dec. Sess., 1895, No. 1, discharging rule of appellant to remit forfeiture of recognizance and strike off judgment. Rule to remit forfeiture of recognizance and strike off judgment. Before Hake, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
In November, 1895, an action of assumpsit was brought against Harris Flomenhaft on a forfeited recognizance for the appearance of one Fogelman to answer a criminal charge. The statement set forth a copy of the recognizance, and averred that it was duly adjudged and decreed to be forfeited on December 30, 1890. Flomenhaft filed an affidavit of defense, in which he admitted that he entered into the recognizance, and did not deny that it was duly adjudged to be forfeited, as alleged in the plaintiff’s statement. It is unnecessary to refer to the other matters alleged in his…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- O'Hara v. BaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- North v. YorkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Foulke v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Commonwealth v. BasendorfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Commonwealth v. BirdLancaster County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BarrettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Commonwealth v. JakubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Commonwealth ex rel. Philadelphia v. Public Service Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. RichardsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Commonwealth v. HarveySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.