Ross v. Dysart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ross v. Dysart

24 Pa. 395

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 Pa. 395 (Ross v. Dysart) 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

Ross v. Dysart, 24 Pa. 395 (Pa. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

LowRIE, J.

The Act of Assembly does not require, on appeals from awards, that the affidavit shall be in writing ; and without such a requirement by Act of Assembly or rule of Court, we cannot declare an unwritten affidavit to be erroneous, and we must presume that the officers administrated it in the form prescribed by law. Such was our decision in a late case at Pittsburgh, Clarke v. Hoag.

The principles appearing in the case of Murray v. Hazlett, 19 State Rep. 357, show that the recognisance is sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

LowRIE, J.

The Act of Assembly does not require, on appeals from awards, that the affidavit shall be in writing ; and without such a requirement by Act of Assembly or rule of Court, we cannot declare an unwritten affidavit to be erroneous, and we must presume that the officers administrated it in the form prescribed by law. Such was our decision in a late case at Pittsburgh, Clarke v. Hoag.

The principles appearing in the case of Murray v. Hazlett, 19 State Rep. 357, show that the recognisance is sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Pa. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-dysart-pa-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack