Weist v. Jacoby

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Weist v. Jacoby

62 Pa. 110, 1869 Pa. LEXIS 221

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 6, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 Pa. 110 (Weist v. Jacoby) 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

Weist v. Jacoby, 62 Pa. 110, 1869 Pa. LEXIS 221 (Pa. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was dfelivered,

by Thompson, C. J.

The single question in this case is, whether the plaintiff may legally have judgment against two of the defendants, the third having pleaded coverture, and having been discharged by a finding of the arbitrators in her favor on this plea, and by an entry of a nolle prosequi by leave of court, as to her after appeal. The court below thought he could, and entered judgment in accordance with that opinion on the case stated.

That a plaintiff may enter a nolle prosequi as to a defendant 'who pleads matters personal to him or herself entitling to a discharge, and thus discharge such defendant as a party from the record, is well settled. Amongst such matters are the pleas of bankruptcy, infancy, coverture and the like. For this see Beidman v. Vanderslice, 2 Rawle 334; 1 William’s Sanders 207, note (a); 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 556, and Swanzey v. Parker, 14 Wright 441. The action here not being for necessaries, the plea of coverture by Mrs. Woods, was within the rule.

The complaint that the nolle prosequi prevented Weist, a co-[112]*112defendant, from showing that Mrs. Woods was liable in the action with him, because the note was in fact for necessaries, is novel. Had it been so, he could not have turned plaintiff and prosecuted her in that action. He might, however, have shown it, I apprehend, to establish a case wherein the plea would not have entitled the defendant to a discharge, and then have claimed, as a consequence, that the nolle prosequi discharging her discharged the other defendants, the suit being joint. If the fact be so, he may still, after payment of the judgment, call on her to repay him money paid for hei use, if he was her surety in the note, and it was for necessaries. This, however, is rather outside of the question presented for adjudication here. As to it, we see no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was dfelivered,

by Thompson, C. J.

The single question in this case is, whether the plaintiff may legally have judgment against two of the defendants, the third having pleaded coverture, and having been discharged by a finding of the arbitrators in her favor on this plea, and by an entry of a nolle prosequi by leave of court, as to her after appeal. The court below thought he could, and entered judgment in accordance with that opinion on the case stated.

That a plaintiff may enter a nolle prosequi as to a defendant 'who pleads matters personal to him or herself entitling to a discharge, and thus discharge such defendant as a party from the record, is well settled. Amongst such matters are the pleas of bankruptcy, infancy, coverture and the like. For this see Beidman v. Vanderslice, 2 Rawle 334; 1 William’s Sanders 207, note (a); 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 556, and Swanzey v. Parker, 14 Wright 441. The action here not being for necessaries, the plea of coverture by Mrs. Woods, was within the rule.

The complaint that the nolle prosequi prevented Weist, a co-[112]*112defendant, from showing that Mrs. Woods was liable in the action with him, because the note was in fact for necessaries, is novel. Had it been so, he could not have turned plaintiff and prosecuted her in that action. He might, however, have shown it, I apprehend, to establish a case wherein the plea would not have entitled the defendant to a discharge, and then have claimed, as a consequence, that the nolle prosequi discharging her discharged the other defendants, the suit being joint. If the fact be so, he may still, after payment of the judgment, call on her to repay him money paid for hei use, if he was her surety in the note, and it was for necessaries. This, however, is rather outside of the question presented for adjudication here. As to it, we see no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Pa. 110, 1869 Pa. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weist-v-jacoby-pa-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack