Commonwealth v. Basendorf
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 87, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, Margaret Basendorf, from order of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dee. T., 1881, No. 1, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Scire facias sur recognizance. The record showed that defendant had, on Feb. 16, 1891, entered into recognizance for the appearance of Kate McNamara before the court of quarter sessions.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 87, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, Margaret Basendorf, from order of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dee. T., 1881, No. 1, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Scire facias sur recognizance. The record showed that defendant had, on Feb. 16, 1891, entered into recognizance for the appearance of Kate McNamara before the court of quarter sessions. The following entry appeared, “ Recognizance forfeited, IMay 5, 1891.” The defendant averred in her affidavit of defence that Kate McNamara, the prisoner, had a hearing before John Gripp, Esq., alderman,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We think the court below was right in entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The magistrate had the right to take the recognizance, and the short entry of “ Recognizance forfeited, May 5, 1891,” is conclusive in this case that the defendant and the bail were called and did not appear.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- National Surety Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- Commonwealth v. FogelmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Commonwealth v. JakubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Commonwealth v. RichardsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Commonwealth v. HarveySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.