Hartley v. Kirlin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Luzerne county. This was a scire facias to November Term 1869, by William Hartley, to revive and continue the lien of a judgment entered as No. 422, of November Term 1857, against E. H. Kirlin, Reuben Godshall and James S. Slocum, administrator of R. A. Oakford. The original judgment was against Kirlin, Godshall, and Oakford. While the suit was pending, the death of Oak-ford was suggested, and his administrator, Slocum, substituted.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Luzerne county. This was a scire facias to November Term 1869, by William Hartley, to revive and continue the lien of a judgment entered as No. 422, of November Term 1857, against E. H. Kirlin, Reuben Godshall and James S. Slocum, administrator of R. A. Oakford. The original judgment was against Kirlin, Godshall, and Oakford. While the suit was pending, the death of Oak-ford was suggested, and his administrator, Slocum, substituted. The undisputed facts of the case were as follows:— In.1857, E. H. Kirlin, Reuben Godshall, and R. A. Oakford were in business in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by
Lowrie, C. J.
The plaintiff below thinks he did not get enough by his verdict, and the defendant thinks he got too much, and therefore both parties have sued out writs of error. This judgment was given to the plaintiff to secure him for liabilities assumed, and to be assumed for Kirlin, Godshall and Oakford, and the jury have found that several of the liabilities claimed here were assumed after the plaintiff knew that Oakford had left the firm.- It is plain, therefore, that the judgment does not cover them, unless it appear that those liabilities were…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gregory v. BeasleyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1928
- Adams v. DeFrehnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905