Pettit v. Wingate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Greene county. A sci. fa. on a recognisance of bail for stay of execution on a judgment to September Term, 1854, issued December 23, 1854. March 23, 1855, the plaintiff entered a rule to choose arbitrators, which was served on defendant’s attorney, who refused to appear. The plaintiff’s attorney and the prothonotary met and referred the case.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Greene county. A sci. fa. on a recognisance of bail for stay of execution on a judgment to September Term, 1854, issued December 23, 1854. March 23, 1855, the plaintiff entered a rule to choose arbitrators, which was served on defendant’s attorney, who refused to appear. The plaintiff’s attorney and the prothonotary met and referred the case. The only question considered by this Court was, whether a suit on a recognisance of bail could be arbitrated.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lowrie, J. —
The decision below was that an action on a recog nisance of bail for stay of execution, may be referred to arbitrators under a compulsory rule; and we do not think that this is erroneous. True, the arbitration Act of 1836, in defining what actions may be thus referred, excepts “ actions upon bail-bonds or *75recognisances;” but the commissioners who reported the Act, say that they intended only to embody the principles already decided by the courts, and we have no doubt they were so understood. It is not allowed on bail-bonds and recognisances…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevenson v. DochertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Bowman v. Sharp & CarmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837