Peck v. Whitaker

103 Pa. 297, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 157
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 23, 1883·No. No. 57·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed

Pee Cukiam.

It is trne a sheriff out of office cannot amend his return so as to defeat an action brought against him for damages. That rule does not apply to the facts in this case. Here the sheriff is merely the legal plaintiff in the action ; but it is solely for the benefit of the lien creditors entitled to the fund : Tindle’s Appeal, 27 P. F. Smith 201. The money, however, is not to be distributed on the trial of this cause. After the recovery is had, and due notice to all, claiming to share in the fund, a distribution will be made. They are not parties to this suit, and the precise quantum of their shares are not to be determined now. The amendment was properly allowed. The statute of limitations qualifying the effect thereof was not interposed as a plea. We see no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Peck v. Whitaker, 103 Pa. 297, 1883 Pa. LEXIS 157 (Pa. 1883).

103 Pa. 297 (Peck v. Whitaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reihart v. Hess
59 Pa. D. & C. 417 (Fulton County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Corn v. Brigham
58 Pa. D. & C. 271 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1946)
Maloney v. Simpson
75 A. 675 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Dickson v. McCartney
75 A. 735 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Hartman v. Pemberton
24 Pa. Super. 222 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Martin v. Berwind-White Coal Min. Co.
114 F. 553 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania, 1902)