Miller v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin. By the record it appeared that the judgment had been entered upon the following award of arbitrators. “ We “ the referees within named, met at the time and place ap- “ pointed, and were severally sworn.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. THIS was a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin. By the record it appeared that the judgment had been entered upon the following award of arbitrators. “ We “ the referees within named, met at the time and place ap- “ pointed, and were severally sworn. It appearing that the “ plaintiffs had no notice, we continued the cause to October “ 15th then next, at which time we again met; and it being duly proved to us, that the plaintiffs were legally notified “ of the time and place of meeting, and they not attending, “ we are of opinion, that the plaintiffs be nonsuited.” The error…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This suit was submitted to arbitrators, under the act of 20th March 1810. The question is, whether there is error on the face of the award. It appears, as set forth by the arbitrators, that the plaintiffs had no notice of the time and place of their first meeting. They therefore adjourned to another day, when the plaintiffs not appearing, *63and proof being made that they had been served with notice, the arbitrators were of opinion that the plaintiffs should' he nonsuited. These are their expressions, which are in the style of a court of justice, rendering judgment on a default.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gould v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
- Waage v. WeiserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- M'Dermott v. United States InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817