Case Name: Moulson against Rees
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1813-06-02
Citations: 6 Binn. 32
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moulson against Rees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 6
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
Moulson against Rees.
Sunbury, Wednesday, June 2.
If a rula of ai latration misrecites the date of the. itis immaterial,
If a plaintiff, by arbitrating ms cause, and getting judgment, before the entry of special bail, dispenses tive de?ei?daL^^^ cannot assign it
If the cause of the award6 nci-11 ther statement, nor declaration is necessary.
IN ERROR.
TT' RROR to Northumberland, m which county Rees issued rl . _ _ , . , i a capias m case, and referred it to arbitrators, who awarded “ that the defendant below should deliver a' certain a ¿eed poll to Sees, pay all costs of suit, and damage six-i it *«* “ teen dollars.
_. . . , , . , ihe exceptions taken to the record were, 1. ihat the ac-**011 was arbitrated by the plaintiff below, and tried by the arbitrators, before the plaintiff in error entered special bail, after being arrested on the capias.. 2. That the cause of ac-^on did not appear either in the writ, or in any statement or declaration filed. 3. That the act of Assembly referred . - r - . ^ to m the rule oi arbitration, was ox the 19th March 1810; whereas there was no such law of that date.
Mans, for plaintiff in error.
Greenough, contra.

Opinion:
Tilghman G. J.
delivered judgment.
The arbitration maybe entered at anytime after the issuing of the writ, which is the -commencement of the suit, according to the opinion of the Court in Hertzog v. Ellis, 3 Binn. 209. The plaintiff in this case, although a capias was issued, has dispensed with special bail, as he had a right to do; and this is for the advantage of the defendant. As to the cause of action, it sufficiently appears on the record, that the matter in dispute was a deed, which was described in the award, and for the conversion of which, sixteen dollars damages are given. I consider the action as Trover,^nd the judgment as relating to the damages only, and not to the delivery of the deed'. As for the mistake in the date of the act, it is immaterial. It is a public act, of which the .Court must take notice. The mentioning of it by the prothonotary in entering the rule, of reference, was surplusage. Besides the title of the act is properly given, although the date is. mistaken.
Judgment affirmed.