Case ID: walker_2/html/0446-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BICKEL VS. THE PHILA. WOOD PAVING CO.
    A writ of error does not lie to the refusal of the Court to order a judgment •to be marked “satisfied ”
    Error to Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County. No. 242 January Term, 1884.
    The Philadelphia Wood Paving Co. recovered a verdict .against John E. and John M. Bickel on January 27th, 1880, for $5,777.36. This was affirmed by the' Supreme Court, ante 150, and on March 7th, 1881, Bickel paid all but $1,065. 33 Barker Bros. & Gardiner had on March 23, 1872, recovered a judgment for $1,060.37 against the Philadelphia Wood Paving Co. On December 13th, 1876, John E. Bickel alleged that he purchased this latter judgment, and had it marked to his use of record. On May 16th, 1877, and also on June 22nd, 1880, .attachments were issued on the Barker Bros, judgment to use of John E. Bickel against the Philadelphia Wood Paving Co. with notice to John E. -Bickel as garnishee. These attachments were served on the ' garnishee, and returned “nihil habet” as to the defendant. Interrogatories were filed, and an answer was put in by John E. Bickel, on March 27th, 1882, acknowledging his •indebtedness to the Philadelphia Wood Paving Co. in the amount of $1,065.33, as before stated. Judgment was taken on the answer, on April 1st, 1882, for the amount admitted to be due with interest. On December 3, 1883, the Wood Paving Co. issued a Fi. Fa. to collect $1,065.33 due on the judgment. Bickel then applied to the Court, and asked to have the execution set aside-; and the judgment marked “satisfied.” The Wood Paving Co. alleged that the judgment on the attatchment had been obtained by default, one of the Bickels being president at the time ; and that the judgment had not been paid for in full by Bickel. The Court set aside the execution ; but refused to mark the judgment satisfied. Bickel then took a writ of error, complaining of the action of the Court in this particular.
    
      George Junkin, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    cited Act of March 14, 1876, P. Laws 7; Lyon vs. Hampton, 20 Pa. 46; Hunt vs. Breading, 12 S. & R. 41; Dean vs. Patton, 13 S. & R. 345; Duncan vs. Harris, 17 S. & R. 436.
    
      W. H. Smith, Esq., contra,
    
    cited Gifford’s Appeal, 95 Pa. 247; Horton vs. Hopf, 4 W. N. C. 381; Riddle’s Appeal, 104 Pa. 141; Heidelbaugh vs. Thomas, 10 W. N. C. 141.
   The Supreme Court affrmed the judgment of the Common Pleas, and quashed the writ of error on January 26th, 1885, in iho following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The facts do not bring this ease within the meaning and spirit of Act of March 14, 1876, P. Laws 7; nor does the Act allow a writ of error, in the case of a refusal by the Court, to mark the judgment satisfied.

Writ quashed.