La Fitte v. La Fitte
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS was a scire facias founded upon the judgment obtained by the Commonwealth in the next preceding case, hfought by Teresa La Fitte against the same defendants, for Fer distributive share of the estate of Peter La Fitte, A compulsory rule for arbitration was entered by the plaintiff under the law referred to above, and on the 12th September, 1815, an award was -filed in her favour for 715 dollars 15 cents. Within • twenty days an appeal was entered.
Read the full summary
THIS was a scire facias founded upon the judgment obtained by the Commonwealth in the next preceding case, hfought by Teresa La Fitte against the same defendants, for Fer distributive share of the estate of Peter La Fitte, A compulsory rule for arbitration was entered by the plaintiff under the law referred to above, and on the 12th September, 1815, an award was -filed in her favour for 715 dollars 15 cents. Within • twenty days an appeal was entered. The costs were paid, and the recognisance was for all the defendants ; but the ajfidavit was made by Aime Brandt alone. ' For this reason £>.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The affidavit made by one of the defendants is sufficient. The recognisance being for all the defendants, the appeal stands for all. But if either of them comes into Court and desires to be severed, he may do it, and then the appeal will go on in the name of the others. This is according to our decision in Gallagher v. Jackson.(a)
Motion refused.
1 Ser. & Rep. 492.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hartman v. StahlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830