Schwartz v. Blicker

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas

Schwartz v. Blicker

2 Pa. D. & C. 78, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 179

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County

DecidedJune 14, 1922

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pa. D. & C. 78 (Schwartz v. Blicker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwartz v. Blicker, 2 Pa. D. & C. 78, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Ryan, P. J.,

The justice entered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant “in the sum of $290 and interest from March 17, 1921, and costs of suit.” It should have been for the amount of principal and interest, to wit, $302.61. It is to be presumed that this was the plaintiff’s demand, although the record does not state the amount of plaintiff’s claim or the nature of the cause of action. “The sum demanded is the test of jurisdiction:” Collins v. Collins, 37 Pa. 387. If judgment was entered for the amount of plaintiff’s claim, it exceeded the limit of a justice’s jurisdiction, which is $300. This record should also have set forth the nature and amount of the plaintiff’s claim. We are also of the opinion that it should have stated that the judgment was entered “publicly.”

And now, to wit, June 14, 1922, the exceptions are sustained and the judgment of the justice reversed, and judgment is entered for the defendant and against the plaintiff for the costs of this proceeding.

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

Ryan, P. J.,

The justice entered judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant “in the sum of $290 and interest from March 17, 1921, and costs of suit.” It should have been for the amount of principal and interest, to wit, $302.61. It is to be presumed that this was the plaintiff’s demand, although the record does not state the amount of plaintiff’s claim or the nature of the cause of action. “The sum demanded is the test of jurisdiction:” Collins v. Collins, 37 Pa. 387. If judgment was entered for the amount of plaintiff’s claim, it exceeded the limit of a justice’s jurisdiction, which is $300. This record should also have set forth the nature and amount of the plaintiff’s claim. We are also of the opinion that it should have stated that the judgment was entered “publicly.”

And now, to wit, June 14, 1922, the exceptions are sustained and the judgment of the justice reversed, and judgment is entered for the defendant and against the plaintiff for the costs of this proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pa. D. & C. 78, 1922 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-blicker-pactcomplbucks-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack