Williams v. Landon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. ON a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lyco-ming county, if appeared that Daniel Landon, the plaintiff below and defendant in error, brought this action on the case against Joseph Williams and William Fulmer, supervisors of Loyalsock township, for the recovery of one hundred and forty-five dollars and sixty-two cents, due to him as a former supervisor of the same township.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. ON a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lyco-ming county, if appeared that Daniel Landon, the plaintiff below and defendant in error, brought this action on the case against Joseph Williams and William Fulmer, supervisors of Loyalsock township, for the recovery of one hundred and forty-five dollars and sixty-two cents, due to him as a former supervisor of the same township. His account had been settled by auditors appointed according to law, who gave an order on the defendants, the present supervisors, to pay this sum to the plaintiff. This cause was submitted to…
1Opinion of the Court
Pek Curiam.
On the part of the plaintiffs in error, it was contended, that the award in this case was erroneous, because the defendant was not to pay the money immediately, or certainly^ but at a future time and on an uncertain event.
The act of assembly which gives to the report of arbitrators the effect of a judgment, must have intended such a judgment as would authorize the plaintiff to take out an execution. But no execution could be taken oii this award,, because the money was to be paid in futuro, and upon a contingency. It might be, that the defendants would never be in possession of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Shoemaker v. MeyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818