Ash v. Conyers

2 Miles 94
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
DecidedMay 10, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 Miles 94 (Ash v. Conyers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ash v. Conyers, 2 Miles 94 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1837).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The act of 28th March, 1835, is peremptory that judgment shall be rendered for want of an affidavit of defence, on or at any time after the third Saturday succeeding the return day of the writ, if the plaintiff has complied with its requisitions in filing a copy of his claim, in the cases prescribed by the act. A statute, however, has relation to the general principles of the law, and it is only presumed to operate in cases where the parties are competent to appear in a court of justice: that is to say, not being infants, (necessaries being out of the question,) feme coverts, insane, and the like. Upon ascertaining that the process has been served upon parties destitute of legal capacity, on timely application, the court will revise their proceedings. In this case, it appears that proceedings were pending in the Common Pleas, as to the lunacy of the defendant, while [95]*95the suit was progressing in this court, and but a few days intervened between judgment here, and inquisition found as to the lunacy in the Common Pleas. This court, therefore, grant this application on the ground that at the time the proceedings in this court were taking place, the defendant was incapable of being a party in* the eye of the law, as found by the inquest in the Court of Common Pleas. That no injury may be done, however, we order that the judgment shall stand as a security, until the plaintiff shall think proper to proceed {vide 29 E. C. L, R. 142) in such form as shall present the question, whether the defendant or his estate are responsible on the original contract, by virtue of his sanity at the time it was entered into.

Rule absolute, but judgment to stand as security.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Benz v. Heckman
2 A.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Burris v. Kain
1 Pa. D. & C. 693 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Miles 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-conyers-pactcomplphilad-1837.