Christy v. Bohlen

5 Pa. 38, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 281
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 9, 1846·Published

Opinion

Burnside, J.

We are all of opinion, that the affidavit of defence was sufficient. The amount of the judgment in the original action having been made on the fi. fa., by a sale of the defendant’s goods, and in the hands of the sheriff was a substantial satisfaction of the recognisance of bail for stay of execution. Milliken v. Brown, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 188; 1 Rawle, 392. Where the sheriff returns that he has sold goods to the amount of' a certain sum, by virtue of an execution, he is liable for the same. The utmost the defendant below was liable for, if his.affidavit was true, was the costs of the scire facias.

Judgment reversed, and procedendo awarded.

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

Christy v. Bohlen, 5 Pa. 38, 1846 Pa. LEXIS 281 (Pa. 1846).

5 Pa. 38 (Christy v. Bohlen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milliken v. Brown
10 Serg. & Rawle 188 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1823)