Langer v. Parish

8 Serg. & Rawle 134

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 23, 1822
• Status: Published

Opinion

By the Court

This case cannot be distinguished from Miller v. Ralston, where the judgment was reversed, because the declaration in the Court of Common Pleas laid the promise of the defendant, at a time subsequent to the entering of the appeal. 1 Serg. Rawle, 309. The very same point was decided, in McLaughlin v. Parker, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 144. In Miller v. Ralston, the Court refused a venire de novo, because there had been no error in the trial of the cause ; and it has been refused in other similar cases. Sending back a record to be amended, is always matter of discretion. If there had been a mere clerical error, there would have been no difficulty in sending it back, or in considering it as amended, without sending it back. But we do not consider it as a clerical error. The judgment must therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed.