Soop v. Coats

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Soop v. Coats

12 Serg. & Rawle 388, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 31

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 16, 1825

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 Serg. & Rawle 388 (Soop v. Coats) 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

Soop v. Coats, 12 Serg. & Rawle 388, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 31 (Pa. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

The question in this case is, whether a plaintiff, who brought suit before a justice of the peace for a debt of forty-two dollars and four cents, and obtained judgment on the award of arbitrators, for nine dollars and seventy-five cents, is entitled to an appeal. The principle established in the case of Stoy’s Adminis-tratrix v. Yost, decided this day, is decisive. The act of assembly of the 20th of March, 1810, allows an appeal when the judgment of the justice exceeds twenty dollars. The construction of this act is, that where the debt sued for by the plaintiff, and set forth on the docket of the justice, is reduced by the judgment more than twenty dollars, a'n appeal lies for the plaintiff, although the' judgment is for a less sum than twenty dollars. So an appeal lies for the plaintiff, when his detrend, set forth on the docket of the justice, exceeds twenty dollars, and judgment is rendered for the defendant. In both these cases, the judgment is substantially to a greater amount than twenty dollars. But in cases where it does' not appear by the demand of the plaintiff, set forth on the docket of the justice, that the debt sued for exceeds twenty dollars, and judgment is rendered for the defendant, or for the plaintiff for a sum less than twenty dollars, no appeal lies, as was decided in M'Kim v. Bryson, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 463. In the present case, the plaintiff’s demand, set forth on the docket of the justice, was, of a debt of forty-two dollars and four cents, which was reduced more than twenty-nine dollars, by the judgment for nine dollars and seventy-five cents. He was therefore entitled to an appeal. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, by which the appeal was quashed, was therefore erroneous, and is to be reversed. The record is to be remitted, with an order that the Court of Common Pleas reinstate the appeal and proceed in it.

Judgment reversed, and record remitted, with directions to reinstate the appeal.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Tilghman, C. J.

The question in this case is, whether a plaintiff, who brought suit before a justice of the peace for a debt of forty-two dollars and four cents, and obtained judgment on the award of arbitrators, for nine dollars and seventy-five cents, is entitled to an appeal. The principle established in the case of Stoy’s Adminis-tratrix v. Yost, decided this day, is decisive. The act of assembly of the 20th of March, 1810, allows an appeal when the judgment of the justice exceeds twenty dollars. The construction of this act is, that where the debt sued for by the plaintiff, and set forth on the docket of the justice, is reduced by the judgment more than twenty dollars, a'n appeal lies for the plaintiff, although the' judgment is for a less sum than twenty dollars. So an appeal lies for the plaintiff, when his detrend, set forth on the docket of the justice, exceeds twenty dollars, and judgment is rendered for the defendant. In both these cases, the judgment is substantially to a greater amount than twenty dollars. But in cases where it does' not appear by the demand of the plaintiff, set forth on the docket of the justice, that the debt sued for exceeds twenty dollars, and judgment is rendered for the defendant, or for the plaintiff for a sum less than twenty dollars, no appeal lies, as was decided in M'Kim v. Bryson, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 463. In the present case, the plaintiff’s demand, set forth on the docket of the justice, was, of a debt of forty-two dollars and four cents, which was reduced more than twenty-nine dollars, by the judgment for nine dollars and seventy-five cents. He was therefore entitled to an appeal. The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, by which the appeal was quashed, was therefore erroneous, and is to be reversed. The record is to be remitted, with an order that the Court of Common Pleas reinstate the appeal and proceed in it.

Judgment reversed, and record remitted, with directions to reinstate the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Serg. & Rawle 388, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soop-v-coats-pa-1825.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack