Morrison v. Hartman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a scire facias on a recognisance issued in favor of Hartman and Hoge v. Morrison on his recognisance of bail for stay of execution, in a judgment obtained by plaintiffs against Hamnet and Schoyer. On the judgment against Hamnet and Schoyer a fi. fa. had issued, which was stayed by order of plaintiff’s attorney. No levy had been made upon it.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a scire facias on a recognisance issued in favor of Hartman and Hoge v. Morrison on his recognisance of bail for stay of execution, in a judgment obtained by plaintiffs against Hamnet and Schoyer. On the judgment against Hamnet and Schoyer a fi. fa. had issued, which was stayed by order of plaintiff’s attorney. No levy had been made upon it. On the trial, the deposition of Hamnet was offered, on the part of defendant, to prove that an arrangement had been made between himself and Mr. Bigham, plaintiff’s attorney, which discharged…
1Per curiam
— The witness would be liable, in any event, either to the plaintiff or to the defendant who is sued, as his surety. If the plaintiff fails, he may recover his debt from the witness with costs; but not the costs of this action. If he recovers, the defendant may recover from him his debt and the costs of both actions. The witness was consequently interested.
The other point also was properly ruled. A creditor who lets the means of satisfaction slip from his hands, discharges his debtor’s surety; but he must have had the means actually in his hands, or at least a specific lien on it. Permissive…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Griesmere v. ThornSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Miners Bank v. Ingham, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1932
- Provident Trust Co. v. Robison, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1951