Steele v. Herrington

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Steele v. Herrington

1 Grant 442

DecidedJuly 1, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Grant 442 (Steele v. Herrington) 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

Steele v. Herrington, 1 Grant 442 (Pa. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion.

Per Curiam.

— We may suppose that this plaintiff in error has some serious ground of objection to this judgment, which might have been reached on an appeal, and that he tries this mode of getting it in, because he has slipped his time for that one.

But we cannot help him without deciding that, when the prothonotary records that he acted for the absent defendant in choosing arbitrators, and does not tell us all the particulars of how he did it, the presumption is that he did it wrong. No official proceedings could stand such a test; The presumption is the other way.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion.

Per Curiam.

— We may suppose that this plaintiff in error has some serious ground of objection to this judgment, which might have been reached on an appeal, and that he tries this mode of getting it in, because he has slipped his time for that one.

But we cannot help him without deciding that, when the prothonotary records that he acted for the absent defendant in choosing arbitrators, and does not tell us all the particulars of how he did it, the presumption is that he did it wrong. No official proceedings could stand such a test; The presumption is the other way.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Grant 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-herrington-pa-1857.