Geier v. Shade
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of BerJcs county: Of January Term 1884, No. 363. Assumpsit, by Ignatius Shade against Osmund Geier and Christoph Becker, on a promissory note for $300, dated May 26th, 1883, given by the defendants to the plaintiff, payable six months after date.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of BerJcs county: Of January Term 1884, No. 363. Assumpsit, by Ignatius Shade against Osmund Geier and Christoph Becker, on a promissory note for $300, dated May 26th, 1883, given by the defendants to the plaintiff, payable six months after date. The defendant Booker filed the following affidavit and supplemental affidavit of defence: “ The plaintiff’s demand is founded on a promissory note given by Osmund Geier as principal, and this deponent as bail, to Ignatius Shade, the plaintiff, for tbe payment of $300 six months after date, which said note is dated…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mercur
delivered tbe opinion of the court,
It is well settled that an agreement in consideration of stifling or compounding a criminal prosecution or proceeding for a felony or a misdemeanor of a public nature is void: Riddle v. Hall, 3 Out., 116. There are, however, misdemeanors of an inferior class in which the public is presumed to have less interest. They are assumed to affect chiefly the parties especially aggrieved thereby. The settlement of offences of this class is not illegal, and therefore an agreement between the offender and tbe party aggrieved, to settle one of this kind is not invalid.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Rothermal v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Commonwealth v. CarrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Brown v. McCreightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Macdonald v. SchroederSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- New York Life Ins. v. NydesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1932