Fries v. Watson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to county. the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin lrlen,; against Watson, the defendant, in the Court of Com mon . . times by scire Jactas, and the question was, in what manner The plaintiff in error, John Frzds^ having obtained judgagainst Watson, the defendant, in the Court of Com-Pleas of Al.iJJlin county, revived his judgment several interest was to be calculated.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to county. the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin lrlen,; against Watson, the defendant, in the Court of Com mon . . times by scire Jactas, and the question was, in what manner The plaintiff in error, John Frzds^ having obtained judgagainst Watson, the defendant, in the Court of Com-Pleas of Al.iJJlin county, revived his judgment several interest was to be calculated. The plaintiff contended, that he had a right to charge interest on the aggregate amount of principal and interest which was due at the time of rendering judgment on each scire facias. The defendant insisted, that…
1Opinion of the Court
*222The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
According to the law of England, no damages are recoverable on a scire facias, consequently no interest could be recovered, although in an action of debt on the judgment, interest might be recovered, by way of damages. But, inasmuch, as our act of assembly, made in the year 1700, directs, that the plaintiff who takes out an execution, may levy to the amount of his judgment and interest, it was decided by this Court in Berryhill v. Wells, 5 Binn. 56, that on a scire facias post annum, Uc. execution might be awarded for the amount of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Berryhill v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hays v. ShannonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Clippinger v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829