Groff v. Musser
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Musser and Herr, the plaintiffs below, brought three suits against Groff, to April Term, 1815, numbers 256, 257, and 283. The prcecipe in each was for “ summons in debt, “ on promissory note not exceeding 250 dollars.” The plaintiffs took out a rule of arbitration in each case, and the same arbitrators were appointed in each suit, to meet at the same time and place.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, in which Musser and Herr, the plaintiffs below, brought three suits against Groff, to April Term, 1815, numbers 256, 257, and 283. The prcecipe in each was for “ summons in debt, “ on promissory note not exceeding 250 dollars.” The plaintiffs took out a rule of arbitration in each case, and the same arbitrators were appointed in each suit, to meet at the same time and place. The arbitrators met accordingly, and after hearing the parties, made an award which was returned upon the rule in No. 256, that “ defendant has to pay his “ three…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This is an action of debt, brought under our act °f assembly, on a promissory note, not exceeding 250 dollars. A rule of reference was entered by the plaintiff, and the cause was carried before arbitrators, who made an award, “ that the defendant has to pay his three notes, “ amounting to 550 dollars, with lawful interest, December “ 16th, 1815.” It appears from this, that the arbitrators consolidated three actions, and included the whole in one award; and the plaintiff took out an execution for the whole amount of the three notes and interest, and the costs of the three suits.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gerard v. BasseSupreme Court of the United States · 1784
- Hart v. JamesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1788
3Cited by1 opinion
- Spence v. SpenceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835