Dillman v. Schultz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. BY the writ of error issued to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county, it appeared, that this action was brought by Schultz, the plaintiff below, by a capias ad respondendum, issued against Dillman and Jamison, as defendants, in an action of debt on bond. The sheriff returned the • , , . ^.,, writ executed as to Jamison, and non est inventus as to Dill-man.
Read the full summary
In Error. BY the writ of error issued to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county, it appeared, that this action was brought by Schultz, the plaintiff below, by a capias ad respondendum, issued against Dillman and Jamison, as defendants, in an action of debt on bond. The sheriff returned the • , , . ^.,, writ executed as to Jamison, and non est inventus as to Dill-man. The declaration was against Jamison alone, stating the capias against both the return of non est inventus as to Dillman, and that the bond on which the action was founded, was executed by Jamison. The cause went to trial on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J.
A capias ad respondendum in debt issued against Dillman and Jamison, on which the sheriff returns non est inventus a.s to Dillman. The declaration is against *36Jamison alone, stating the capias against both, the non est inventus as to Dillman, and stating the bond on which the action is founded to have been executed by Jamison, who pjeacis nQn est jactUm, on which issue is joined, and a verdict for the plaintiff, and the error alleged is in this variance. The bill of exceptions on the rejection of a certain deposition is candidly given up by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Douglass v. BeamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nathanson v. SpitzSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1895