Butcher v. Metts
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, but judgment was arresied on account of the insufficiency of the verdict, antep. 153. The plaintiff then obtained a rule to show cause why a venire facias de novo should not be awarded, the former trial having proved fruitless. resisted the award of a new venire, and contended that upon the arrest of the judgment the action was at an end ; that the defendant no longer had a day in court, and tiiat there was no way in…
Read the full summary
IN this case a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, but judgment was arresied on account of the insufficiency of the verdict, antep. 153. The plaintiff then obtained a rule to show cause why a venire facias de novo should not be awarded, the former trial having proved fruitless. resisted the award of a new venire, and contended that upon the arrest of the judgment the action was at an end ; that the defendant no longer had a day in court, and tiiat there was no way in which he could be brought into court but by a new original.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Jones, J.
An arrest of judgment is in effect nothing more than superseding a verdict for some cause apparent upon the record, which shows that the plaintiff is not. entitled to the benefit of the verdict. It is often followed by a judgment for the defendant, that he go without day, but it is not of itself a judgment for the defendant. The court may, after an arrest of judgment, award a re-pleader or a venire de novo without a re pleader. Which of these courses is the proper one, depends upon the nature of the defect, for *234winch the judgment is arrested.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Miller v. RalstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- White v. Kyle's LesseeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
3Cited by2 opinions
- Smullin v. HarenskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- State ex rel. Bond v. FisherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910