Blackburn v. Markle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
tíí EKR0R. jw ■» ■* RROR to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon« The parties having had a controversy in relation to an exchange of lands, Blnckburn and Confare instituted an ejectment, in which by consent judgment was entered for the plaintiffs, and by rule of Court it was referred to three ,, , , . . -, , . ~ , men, “ who taking into view all the circumstances or the “ transaction, were to make report what sum was to be paid “ to the defendant, the plaintiffs holding both…
Read the full summary
tíí EKR0R. jw ■» ■* RROR to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon« The parties having had a controversy in relation to an exchange of lands, Blnckburn and Confare instituted an ejectment, in which by consent judgment was entered for the plaintiffs, and by rule of Court it was referred to three ,, , , . . -, , . ~ , men, “ who taking into view all the circumstances or the “ transaction, were to make report what sum was to be paid “ to the defendant, the plaintiffs holding both properties “ mentioned in the articles of exchange. Articles of ex- “ change to be delivered up, on the report being made and…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
This agreement was entirely collateral to the action. It would have been better .to have entered anew action,-in which the defendant should have been plaintiff. Being made however by rule of Court, the party injured by non-performance of the award, might perhaps have remedy by attachment, but as to that I give no opinion. That is the mode by which reports under rules of Court are enforced in England, and could have been enforced here, but for an. act of assembly, which authorizes the entry of a judgment in the same manner as upon the verdict of a jury. Act for Defalcation, 170S.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kunckle v. KunckleSupreme Court of the United States · 1788
- Gulick v. LoderSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1835