Ely v. Karmany
23 Pa. 314
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The instrument on which the judgments were entered is, in construction of law, a power given to the prothonotary. He has no better right than an attorney-at-law to enter two judgments under a single warrant. The entry of the first judgment exhausts the power, and in this case the Court committed' no error in vacating the second.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ely v. Karmany, 23 Pa. 314 (Pa. 1854).
23 Pa. 314 (Ely v. Karmany) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. Security-Peoples Bank & Trust Co.
36 B.R. 869 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1984)
Smith v. Safeguard Mutual Insurance
239 A.2d 824 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)
Maricic v. Slesser
44 Pa. D. & C. 693 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
Union Bk. of Nanty-Glo v. Schnabel
139 A. 862 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Kummerle v. Cain
82 Pa. Super. 528 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
George D. Harter Bank v. Straus
170 F. 489 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1909)
Philadelphia v. Johnson
23 Pa. Super. 591 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)