Hurst v. Fisher

1 Watts & Serg. 438
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1841·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Rogers, J.

On the authority of Sandback v. Quigley, (8 Watts 460) and for the reasons assigned by Mr Justice Parsons, the judgment is affirmed. The death of a plaintiff before suit brought, may be pleaded, either in abatement or in bar, because it not only suspends the action, but destroys it altogether. And when a judgment, in favour of or against a dead man, is inadvertently rendered, the party aggrieved may be relieved by writ of error coram nobis. Here the suit was brought before the passage of the Act of the 23d of April 1829, and stands unaffected by its emendatory provisions.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hurst v. Fisher, 1 Watts & Serg. 438 (Pa. 1841).

1 Watts & Serg. 438 (Hurst v. Fisher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marzella v. King
389 A.2d 659 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Peterson v. Foden
59 Pa. D. & C.2d 440 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
Volk Estate
38 Pa. D. & C.2d 97 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1965)
Thompson v. Peck
181 A. 597 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Mitchell v. King
187 Ill. 452 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
Armstrong v. Nixon
16 Tex. 610 (Texas Supreme Court, 1856)