Shoemaker v. Meyer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. WRIT of error to Adams county, in an action of covenant brought by Jacob Meyer, the defendant in error, against John Shoemaker, to August term, 1813. On the 27th September, 1813, it was referred under the arbitration act of 20th March, 1810. The rule of arbitration, instead of the usual submission of “ all matters in variance in the cause between the parties,” contained a submission of “ all mat- . . , , , ,, ters m variance between the parties m the cause.
Read the full summary
In ERROR. WRIT of error to Adams county, in an action of covenant brought by Jacob Meyer, the defendant in error, against John Shoemaker, to August term, 1813. On the 27th September, 1813, it was referred under the arbitration act of 20th March, 1810. The rule of arbitration, instead of the usual submission of “ all matters in variance in the cause between the parties,” contained a submission of “ all mat- . . , , , ,, ters m variance between the parties m the cause. I he arbitrators met, and after having investigated the case, awarded to the plaintiff, the sum of 1365/. 12s. to be paid in ,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson J.
An exception is taken to the form of the rule of reference, which contains a submission of “ all matters in variance between the parties in the cause,” which it is said is a substantial variance from the provisions of the act which gives a reference of “ all matters in variance in the cause, between the parties.” However this critical nicety may stand as to references at common law, or under other acts of assembly, it is sufficient that the present exception was taken in The administrators of Steigleman v. Wolfersberger, decided at the last…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Glass v. BlairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Bachman v. ReigartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
- Williams v. LandonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826