Williams v. Hazlep
This text of 14 Pa. 157 (Williams v. Hazlep) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
It has been long settled that if the appellant pay the costs taxed by the prothonotary, the court will not strike off the appeal, although there afterwards appear to be more costs due: McKeown v. Boudinot, 1 Brown 150 ; Fraley v. Nelson, 5 Ser. & R. 284; Stewart v. Jewell, 11 Ser. & R. 359. The appeal was well entered by the payment of all costs taxed at that time; and being entered, the Common Pleas could not legally dismiss it. When the Common Pleas is satisfied that costs have been omitted, on an improper taxation, they make an order for payment, and enforce their order by attachment: 5 Ser. &. R. 236.
Order of the court dismissing the appeal is reversed, and the appeal is reinstated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Pa. 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-hazlep-pa-1850.