Commonwealth v. Warfel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T, 1893, by Josiah Ream, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1891, No. 49, entering nonsuit in favor of defendants, J. S. Warfel and Milton Eby. Assumpsit on constable’s bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T, 1893, by Josiah Ream, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1891, No. 49, entering nonsuit in favor of defendants, J. S. Warfel and Milton Eby. Assumpsit on constable’s bond. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit, and subsequently refused to take it off, in the following opinion, by Livingston, P. J. “ Oil December 29,1890, a summons in assumpsit on the official bond of J. S. Warfel, constable, upon which the name of Milton Eby appears as surety, was issued in the form directed by the prsecipe. (It will be observed that the action was not instituted in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Chirr Justice Stekrett,
This action of assumpsit, founded on the official bond of the defendant, J. S. Warfel, constable of Leacock township, was brought against him and his bail, to recover damages alleged to *452have been sustained by the use plaintiff in consequence of alleged illegal acts done by said Warfel while claiming to act as such constable under and by virtue of an execution issued by Alderman Halbach, etc.
All the material facts of the case, including the issue presented by the pleadings, the testimony introduced by the plaintiff, etc., are so fully presented by the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. John T. Baldwin & Co. v. YeisleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Shane v. Gulf Refining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Smith v. HoughwotSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Ford v. CampbellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Pollock v. IngramSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.