Zeigler v. Gram
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster. The defendant in error and plaintiff below, Frederick Gram, brought this action of debt against the plaintiff in error and defendant below, Conrad Zeigler, to recover a sum not exceeding half the debt or damages adjudged, being the penalty imposed by the act of the 13th of April, 1791, Purd. Dig. 306, for not entering satisfaction of a judgment after it had been discharged.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Lancaster. The defendant in error and plaintiff below, Frederick Gram, brought this action of debt against the plaintiff in error and defendant below, Conrad Zeigler, to recover a sum not exceeding half the debt or damages adjudged, being the penalty imposed by the act of the 13th of April, 1791, Purd. Dig. 306, for not entering satisfaction of a judgment after it had been discharged. The declaration was in debt for three hundred dollars, and averred a judgment in favour of Zeigler against Gram, on a bond in the penalty…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
This penalty is declared to be recoverable as other debts were recoverable when the act was’ passed by which it is imposed. The jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the action of debt, as well by the acts of assembly then in force as those which have been passed to supply their place, has all along been restrained to causes of action arising from contract express or implied. When a statute imposes a penalty, but prescribes no method of recovery, recourse may doubtless be had to the action of debt; and every debt is said to arise out of a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Montgomery v. PoormanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Ellsworth v. BarstowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Commonwealth ex rel. Potter v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828