Case Name: Murray and another against Cooper, for the use of Taggart
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1820-07-08
Citations: 6 Serg. & Rawle 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: Murray and another against Cooper, for the use of Taggart.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 6
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Murray and another against Cooper, for the use of Taggart.
Saturday, July 8.
Where,on plea of mil tieirecord,the eíMtothere ■was such a re-consequence oftheprothonotaryjudgHl&llt 1V8S omitted to be wWchdthedel fendant died; thaube Court dertod'ojus" tice, enter of'the timeS when it ought to have been entered, ai2ghtSyears'*y provldelfthird personswere
JN ERROR.
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland , . . , . , , county, m which the action was debt, upon a recognisance ’n tl‘e sum °f 23771. 17s. 67., entered into, by order of the Orphans’ Court, by William Murray and Robert Taggart, for securing to the heirs and legal representatives of Thomas Taggart, deceased, the share of his estate to which they should be respectively entitled. The suit was brought in * t u the name of Thomas Cooper, Esquire, President of the Or-Plans’ Court, for David Taggart, to recover his share of the estate. Only one of the defendants, Murray, appeared, wh° pleaded, nul tiel record, on which issue was joined. In '•l16 month of August, 1808, the Court decided, that there was such a record, but the prothonotary omitted to enter judgment. The defendant, supposing that judgment had been entered, sued out a writ of error to this Court on the ... 24th August, 1803, which was non prossed at June Term, 1810. The defendant brought a second writ of error to June ^erm’ which was quashed at June Term, 1815, because no judgment had been entered in the Court of Com-Pleas- On the 26th April, 1816, the Court of Common Pleas, on motion of the plaintiff’s attorney, and after argument, entered judgment for the plaintiff, as of August Term, 1808, William Murray, having died before the en try of the judgment, but after August Term, 1808. Whether there was error in the entry of this judgment, was the question : on which, after argument by Hall, for the plaintiff in error, and Greenough and Hepburn, for the defendant in error,

Opinion:
Tilghman C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
By the stat. of 17. Car. 2. ch. 8., a judgment shall not be affected by the death of a party, after verdict, and before judgment, provided the judgment be entered within two terms after the verdict. In such case, the plaintiff is entitled to his judgment, by virtue of the statute, without calling upon the Court to exercise any extraordinary power. But independently of the statute, the Court has power, in order to do justice, to enter judgment at their discretion, as of a past time, when it ought to have been entered. It was so determined by us, in the case of Griffith v. Ogle, 1 Binn. 172. In the present case, it was supposed by all parties, that the judgment had been entered as of August Term, 1808, when the Court decided on the issue touching the record. Perhaps it was through the fault of the prothonotary that it was not entered. So far as concerned the parties, it was no more than justice to consider it as entered, at the time when the Court intended it should be entered. And as to third persons, they are not to be injured.. Their rights will be protected against any consequences which might result from an entry of the judgment, as of a past time. The Court of Common Pleas, exercised their discretion upon the case that' was before them. They had a right to do so, and I do not see how we can say, that they have abused their discretion. I am of opinion, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed,