Breidenthal v. McKenna

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Breidenthal v. McKenna

14 Pa. 160

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 15, 1850

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 14 Pa. 160 (Breidenthal v. McKenna) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breidenthal v. McKenna, 14 Pa. 160 (Pa. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bell, J.

— The record brought up in this case is very imperfect. From it, however, we are enabled to gather that in January, 1849, Breidenthal, one of the defendants, pleaded the general issue. The other defendants, though they appeared on the return of the writ, put .in no plea. The cause thus rested until January, 1850, when a jury was sworn to try the issue joined, and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. This, according to the decision in Cridland v. Floyd, 6 Ser. & R. 412, where this branch of practice was thoroughly investigated and satisfactorily settled, is equivalent to the formal entry of a nolle prosequi as to the defendants not pleading, or it may be considered as a verdict acquitting them. But not satisfied with this, the counsel for the plaintiffs in error insists that there has been a mistrial, and therefore claims a reversal of the judgment. To prove this, he refers us, not to the record, but to some loose memoranda kept by the clerk of the court, and denominated minutes. These show an entry — “ McKenna v. Breidenthal et al., January 31, 1850, jury sworn to try the issue,” &c. This, however, cannot be treated as part of the record, nor accepted as showing any thing inconsistent with it; and if it could, it would be asking entirely too much to propose that the abbreviation “ et al.,” in stating the title of the action, should be accepted as indicating that the jury were sworn as against all the defendants. The presumption is, that the trying court directed the jury to be properly sworn; a presumption not to be overcome by the loose entry referred to, though that had place among, the regular docket entries. Even then, it would be subject to rejection as surplusage, or for repugnancy. The judgment against Breidenthal is consequently right enough.

But the execution issued against all the defendants. This was erroneous, for the fi. fa. must accord with the judgment, which is against Breidenthal alone. It must therefore be set aside.

Judgment afiirmed, but the execution issued thereon is set aside..

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bell, J.

— The record brought up in this case is very imperfect. From it, however, we are enabled to gather that in January, 1849, Breidenthal, one of the defendants, pleaded the general issue. The other defendants, though they appeared on the return of the writ, put .in no plea. The cause thus rested until January, 1850, when a jury was sworn to try the issue joined, and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. This, according to the decision in Cridland v. Floyd, 6 Ser. & R. 412, where this branch of practice was thoroughly investigated and satisfactorily settled, is equivalent to the formal entry of a nolle prosequi as to the defendants not pleading, or it may be considered as a verdict acquitting them. But not satisfied with this, the counsel for the plaintiffs in error insists that there has been a mistrial, and therefore claims a reversal of the judgment. To prove this, he refers us, not to the record, but to some loose memoranda kept by the clerk of the court, and denominated minutes. These show an entry — “ McKenna v. Breidenthal et al., January 31, 1850, jury sworn to try the issue,” &c. This, however, cannot be treated as part of the record, nor accepted as showing any thing inconsistent with it; and if it could, it would be asking entirely too much to propose that the abbreviation “ et al.,” in stating the title of the action, should be accepted as indicating that the jury were sworn as against all the defendants. The presumption is, that the trying court directed the jury to be properly sworn; a presumption not to be overcome by the loose entry referred to, though that had place among, the regular docket entries. Even then, it would be subject to rejection as surplusage, or for repugnancy. The judgment against Breidenthal is consequently right enough.

But the execution issued against all the defendants. This was erroneous, for the fi. fa. must accord with the judgment, which is against Breidenthal alone. It must therefore be set aside.

Judgment afiirmed, but the execution issued thereon is set aside..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Pa. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breidenthal-v-mckenna-pa-1850.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack