Case ID: serg-rawl_8/html/0418-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gibson J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Coolbaugh and another against Pierce.
    In Pennsylvaaia, a conditional verdict in ejectment, js good.
    In Error.
    ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bradford county, i» an action of ejectment brought b.y the plaintiffs in error against the defendant in error.
    On the trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, conditioned that the defendant shall, by the first day of next June, deposit a deed or acquittance of his part of the orchard now in possession of the plaintiffs, and forty dollars in cash, together with costs of suit; then judgment to .b,e entered for the defendant,”
    
      The defendant having complied with the conditions of the verdict, within the time prescribed, the Court directed judgment to be entered in hi's favour.
    
      Baldwin, for the plaintiffs in error, insisted,
    that this verdict was wholly unauthorised by law, arid'referred to 2 Bac. Abr. 504.
    Mallory, for the defendant in ¿rror, answered,
    that having: n.o Court of Chancery in Pennsylvania, we were obliged to have recourse to conditional verdicts. He cited De Camp v. Feay, 5 Serg. Rawle, 323. Steigleman’s adms. v. Wolfers, berger, 5 Serg. &. Rawle, 167.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gibson J. —

In this State, the action of ejectment approaches very near ta a bill of equity ; and the verdict of a jury, imposing conditions on the party in whose favour it is rendered, performs the office (though imperfectly) of the decree. In our sister States, at least in those that enjoy the benefit of a separate administration of equity, such a verdict would not be sustained; with us it is sustained from necessity. There never has been more that! one decision directly on the point; but the practice has been universal. In the Administrators of Steigleman v. Wolfersberger, 5 Serg. & Rawle, 167, it was held, that a conditional award of arbitrators under the Act of the 20th March, 1810, who- perform the fpnctions of both Court and jury, and have exactly the same powers, was good. The point, however, was directly decided in a case determined at Philadelphia during'the last year, which has not been reported. In fact, a power to impose terms, is one without which we could not, from the very structure of our Courts, do any thing like substantial justice. Here the conditions to be performed by the defendant previous to judgment, are stated with convenient ceftainty. The judgment' is affirmed.

judgment affirmed..