Cavence v. Butler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland. In the Court below it was an appeal by Cavence the defrom the judgment of a justice, for 74 dollars 63 cents.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland. In the Court below it was an appeal by Cavence the defrom the judgment of a justice, for 74 dollars 63 cents. Upon his appeal he caused security to be given in the nature of special bail, in the sum of 140 dollars; but he not join in the recognizance, and what was the form of the recognizan.ce did not appeal', as it did not come up with , ^ A A ' * K the record* -A-tter die appeal was entered, the defendant entered a rule of arbitration, and both parties attended and chose arbitrators. The plaintiff then obtained a rule to shew cause,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The defendant "in error contends, that the appeal was properly quashed for two reasons. First, because the defendant himself was not bound along with his sureties in the recognizance in nature of special bail. Second, because the recognizance was not taken in the form prescribed by laiv. The question arises on the fourth sec*53tion'of the act of 20th March 1810, commonly called the one hundred dollar act. This act directs that where the defendant is the appellant, he shall be bound -with surety in the nature of special bail in a sum sufficient to cover the sum in controversy, all…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Drouilhat v. RottnerOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Boyce v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819