Case Name: MONTGOMERY and others against PATTERSON
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1825-06-27
Citations: 13 Serg. & Rawle 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONTGOMERY and others against PATTERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 13
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
[Sunbury,
June 27, 1825.]
MONTGOMERY and others against PATTERSON.
IN ERROR.
In ejectment by vendor to recover back land sold, but not conveyed, an award for a sum of money is bad.
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, from which this writ of error was returned, John Patterson, the defendant in error, brought ejectment against the plaintiffs in error, James Montgomery, John Mooney, and Joseph Kelly, and the case being arbitrated, an award was made finding for the plaintiff “ the sum of thirteen dollars and fourteen cents, of the hand money, and fifty dollars which was to have been paid by contract on the 1st of Jlpril, 1811, and fifty dollars more which was to have been paid on the 1st of Jlpril, 1812, (both in coopers’ work,) and the interest on both down to the 1st of January, 1825, amounting to two hundred and four dollars and seventy-four cents.” On this award judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, who issued a habere facias possessionem for the land with a fieri facias for the costs of suit.
Huling, for the plaintiffs in error,
now assigned as error that the money was awarded in an action of ejectment, and referred to 1 Serg. & Rawle, 434. 3 Serg. & Rawle, 421.
Hale, contra, contended that the arbitrators meant to find a conditional award, namely that the plaintiff should recover the land unless the sum awarded were paid him by the defendant, and a conditional award, like a conditional verdict was good. 5 Serg. & Rawle, 171. 7 Serg. & Rawle, 155. 8 Serg. & Rawle, 418. The court might mould the judgment so as to do justice.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tirghman, C. J.
This was an ejectment for fifty aeres of land in Mifflin county, which was referred to arbitrators under the compulsory arbitration act. The plaintiff had sold, but not conveyed the land to the defendant, and the purchase money not having been paid, this ejectment was brought for the purpose of compelling payment. The arbitrators awarded a sum of money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The record exhibits a very strange proceeding indeed, for, on this award for money, the plaintiff sued out a habere facias possessionem for the land, with a fieri facias for the costs of suit. This award, according to the act of assembly, stands for a judgment. And it is clearly erroneous, because the action was brought for the recovery of land and not for money. The plaintiff might have sued for the money, and recovered it j but not having parted with the legal estate, he thought proper to sue for the land, and therefore could recover nothing but the land. This is different from the cases cited by the counsel for the plaintiff, where in an ejectment, the jury found for the plaintiff on condition that he release the land to the defendant, on payment of a sum of money within a given time. Such verdicts have been supported by the court — but then the judgment was entered properly, viz. that the plaintiff recover the land. But the court has no right to mould this award, into what might be the proper form. It is in itself a judgment, which no court has a right to alter, although, it may be reversed, if erroneous. It is our opinion that it was erroneous, and should therefore be reversed.
Judgment and execution reversed, and restitution awarded both of the land and money which have been taken from the defendants. The record is to be remitted to the Court of Common of Pleas, in order that such further proceedings may be had as justice may require.