Case ID: serg-rawl_8/html/0157-01.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

Guhr and another against Chambers.
    Writ of en-™^amended by th,‘ P1'®-
    be lla'imthlppear tothe awar<i’ot arbiagainst 'both6*1 from which one appeals, and the plain- ?'? join isbiie wmi both, mi .xevpho* erroneous.’
    In Error.
    ERROR to Dauphin county.
    The plaintiff below, the defendant in error, brought an action against the plaintiffs in error, Jacob and Andrew Guhr, which was submitted to arbitration, under the Act of 20th March, 1810. An award was filed in favour of the plaintiff, and Jacob Guhr, one of the defendants, gave security and entered an appeal. The plaintiff filed a statement against both defendants, to which both pleaded. A testatum fieri fiadas . was afterwards issued against Andrew, which the Court refusing to set aside, this writ of error was brought.
    On the return of the record, a motion was made to quash the writ of error, because it was brought in the name of both defendants, when the execution was against one only. upon examining the prcecipe, the Court ordered the writ ot error to be amended by it, and thus Andrew alone was made plaintiff in error.
    
      The error relied upon by Roberts and Douglas was, the award of execution against one of the defendants, after an appearance by both, an award against both and issue, joined with both.
    In support of their argument, they cited Gallagher v. Jackson, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 492. Lafitte v. Lafitte, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 107. Dickey v. Schreider, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 413. Brigs v. Greinfield, 1 Str. 610. Champlin v. Tilley, 3 Day, 307. Jones v. Badger, 5 Binn. 461. Williams v. M'Fall, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 280. Zeigler v. Fowler, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 238. Brown v. Barnet, 2 Binn. 34. Clason v. Morris, 10 Johns. 524.
    
      Elder, for the defendant in error,
    cited 5 Bac. Ab. 155, 156. 2 Bac., 724, 725; 3 Mass. Rep. 223. Studebacker v. Moore, 3 Binn. 124.
   Per Curiam.

Upon examining the record in this case, it appears, that both the original defendants were parties to the- appeal. It is true, that one Only was active in entering the appeal.; but the other never disavowed it. On the contrary, he appeared and. pleaded, after the plaintiff had filed a-statement against both. By this statement,-the plaintiff concluded himself. He could not afterwards denv, that both defendants were in the Court of Common Pleas. He had no right therefore, to issue an execution on the report of the arbitrators. It is the opinion of the Court, that the execution was erroneous, and should be quashed.

Execution quashed.