Payran v. M'Williams

9 Watts & Serg. 154
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 15, 1844·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Had the defendant objected in time to the filing of a statement, the plaintiff would have been driven to a declaration. But having pleaded in bar, it was in the discretion of the court to refuse him its leave to withdraw his plea and demur, and consequently not a subject of inquiry on a writ of error. Neither do we agree that the admissibility of the evidence depended upon the specific character of the pleadings; or that the court erred in [156]*156charging that a prothonotary is not entitled to a separate attachment fee for every witness whose name is inserted in the writ. The statements filed, however, are miserably defective in substance and’form, for which judgment ought to have been arrested ; and had that been assigned for error here, it must have prevailed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Payran v. M'Williams, 9 Watts & Serg. 154 (Pa. 1844).

9 Watts & Serg. 154 (Payran v. M'Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth ex rel. Sweeney v. Housekeeper
2 Foster 289 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1874)