Smith v. Schell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county, to which the writ of error in this case issued, this was an action of trespass, vi et armis, &c. brought by Jacob Schell, against Matthias Smith, and William Gibson, for taking and carrying away eleven barrels of flour, the property of the plaiutiff. On the trial in the court below, the plaintiff gave evidence that he had purchased the flour of a certain Henry Frazer.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. In the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford county, to which the writ of error in this case issued, this was an action of trespass, vi et armis, &c. brought by Jacob Schell, against Matthias Smith, and William Gibson, for taking and carrying away eleven barrels of flour, the property of the plaiutiff. On the trial in the court below, the plaintiff gave evidence that he had purchased the flour of a certain Henry Frazer. The defendant, Gibson, was constable of the town of Bedford, and the defence made by him, and Smith, the other defendant, was, that Smith had obtained a judgment against…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tirghman, C. J.
By the act of the 20th of March, 1810, section 11, (5 Sm. L. 161,) the justice is required to issue the execution, directed to “the constable of the ward, district, or township, *338where the defendant resides, or the next constable most convenient to the defendant.” The next constable most convenient to the defendant, are rather vague expressions. Who is to judge of the next constable most convenient to the defendant, unless that be left to the opinion of the justice? It would be extremely hard to throw the decision of this question on a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gordon v. CampSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846