Latshaw v. Steinman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Latshaw v. Steinman

11 Serg. & Rawle 357, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 78

DecidedSeptember 9, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Serg. & Rawle 357 (Latshaw v. Steinman) 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

Latshaw v. Steinman, 11 Serg. & Rawle 357, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 78 (Pa. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It has been contended by the plaintiffs in error, that the Court of Common Pleas had no right to amend the judgment; but we are of opinion, that court had a right in their discretion, to order the amendment, and whether that discretion was judiciously exercised, is what is not to be inquired of in a court of error. The record stands thus, then: The plaintiff has declared against six defendants, and taken judgment against three only, without noticing the others. This is error. According to our practice, the declaration might have been against the three who were summoned, with an averment, that process was issued against the three others who were not to be found, &e. But this declaration avers, that all six of the defendants were summoned; and the action being joint, it was not competent to the plaintiff to take judgment against three only, and discharge the others.

It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

It has been contended by the plaintiffs in error, that the Court of Common Pleas had no right to amend the judgment; but we are of opinion, that court had a right in their discretion, to order the amendment, and whether that discretion was judiciously exercised, is what is not to be inquired of in a court of error. The record stands thus, then: The plaintiff has declared against six defendants, and taken judgment against three only, without noticing the others. This is error. According to our practice, the declaration might have been against the three who were summoned, with an averment, that process was issued against the three others who were not to be found, &e. But this declaration avers, that all six of the defendants were summoned; and the action being joint, it was not competent to the plaintiff to take judgment against three only, and discharge the others.

It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Serg. & Rawle 357, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latshaw-v-steinman-pa-1824.