Case Name: SIGINESKY vs. KINNEY
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1884-05-05
Citations: 4 Walk. 299
Docket Number: No. 233
Parties: SIGINESKY vs. KINNEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 299–301

Head Matter:
SIGINESKY vs. KINNEY.
In an appeal from a judgment of a Justice for wages, the Court may permit the recognizance to he amended.
Error to Common Pleas of Luzerne County, No. 233 January Term, 1884.
The plaintiff, Margaret Siginesky, a minor, worked for defendant, D. P. Kinney, for over two years. She brought suit for her wages.before Wm. Morgan, Justice of the Peace, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $218.17. Defendant gave bail in the sum of $500, before the Justice for •costs which might accrue, took a transcript of the proceedings before the Justice and filed it in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, as, and for, an appeal, but neither filed affidavit as required by Act of 28 February, 1870, P. L., 269, regulating appeals from judgments of Justice of the Peace in Luzerne county in suits for wages, nor entered bail before the Justice for the debt and costs as required by Section 1, Act 20th April, 1876, P. L., 43, and Section 5, Act of 9th April, 1872, P. L., 47, in all appeals from judgments of Justices of the Peace in suits for wages.
On presentation of petition and on motion of counsel for plaintiff Court granted rule to show cause why the appeal of ■defendant should not be stricken off, which rule was discharged January 4, 1883,
Plaintiff then took a writ of error complaining of the action of the Court in not striking off the appeal.
Messrs. D. L. O’Neill and D. C. Harrington, Esqs., for plaintiff in error,
argued that the affidavit that appeal is not intended for delay, and giving bail for debt as well as costs were essential; Act of February 28, 1870, P. L., 269; Hazen vs. Albertson, 12 Luz. Leg. Reg., 146; Act April 9, 1872, P. L., 47, Sec. 5; Act April 20, 1876, P. L., 43. An appeal without a recognizance is a nullity; McGready vs. McGovern, 10 Luz. Leg. Reg., 292; Sanders vs. Potteiger, 7 Luz. Leg. Reg., 157; Steichler vs. Pflaumer, 27 Pitts, L. J., 36; Schneider vs. Hess, 10 L. Bar, 99; Hibbs vs. Stein, 8 Phila., 236. In a suit for wages a recognizance for costs only is void; King vs. Culbertson, 10 S. & R., 325; Pier vs. McKinney, 2 Watts, 103.
Messrs. Harding and McGahren, contra,
argued that the Justice’s record showed that defendant appeale 1, and gave bail in the sum of $500, being more than double the amount of the judgment. That the affidavit of the appeal was afterwards filed in Court; and an additional recognizance in the proper form was filed in Court.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court quashed the writ of error on May 5th, 1884, in the following opinion :
Per Curiam.
An appeal having been taken and a recognizance entered into within the time fixed by the statute, it was not error for the Court to permit the appeal to be afterwards perfected. The affidavit having been made, and a recognizance taken in due form, there was no error in refusing to strike off the appeal. As the case is now pending error will not lie.
Writ quashed.