Case Name: BEALE and others, Executors of BEALE, against The COMMONWEALTH, for the use of W. and C. MARKS
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1827-06-20
Citations: 16 Serg. & Rawle 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEALE and others, Executors of BEALE, against The COMMONWEALTH, for the use of W. and C. MARKS.
Judges: Gibson, C. J., concurred with Rogers, J.; but Duncan, J., agreeing with Tod, J., the judgment was affirmed, because the courf was equally divided. Huston, J., took no part in the decision, having ruled the case below.
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 16
Pages: 150–154

Head Matter:
[Sunbury,
June 20,1827.]
BEALE and others, Executors of BEALE, against The COMMONWEALTH, for the use of W. and C. MARKS.
IN ERROR.
In debt on recognizance against the surety of the sheriff, the declaration assigned as a breach, that the sheriff by virtue of an execution levied on property, and received certain sums of money which he did not pay over. It was assigned for error that no judgment was averred. Court equally divided, and judgment for the plaintiff affirmed.
It cannot be assigned for error that the execution produced varied from that stated in the narr., in the Christian name of one of the plaintiffs in the execution.
If a new declaration be filed with the leave of the court, and the defendant go on to trial on the former plea, he is considered as abiding by his former plea.
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county.
Debt in the court below on recognizance against the plaintiffs in error, executors of TV. Beale, one of the sureties of T. Beale, sheriff of that county. To the declaration on the recognizance the defendants had pleaded payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence; and issue was joined thereon.
Afterwards, on application of the plaintiff,the court below granted leave to file a new declaration, and withdraw the former one. A new narr. was filed, but the former was not withdrawn. It did not appear that to the second declaration, any plea was entered or called for. The new declaration, after setting out the recognizance and the condition of it, alleged for breach, that, "While the said Thomas so continued sheriff, he, by virtue of a writ of fieri facias out of the Court of Common Pleas of said county, to him directed and delivered, at the suit of William and Christopher Marks against Samuel Belford, made a levy upon Belford’s property, (specifying it,) and at seven different payments from Belford, (specifying the date and sums) received from him on the execution, one hundred and eleven dollars and fifty cents;” and stating a refusal to pay over the same or any part to said William and Christopher, though often required, &c. The errors insisted on in this court were:
1. The admitting a new declaration when the cause was at issue, without consent of defendants.
2. The séeond declaration, even supposing it to be legally a part of the record, sets forth no cause of action. It has throughout the names of William and Christopher Marks, instead of William and Christian Marks, as in the writ. No execution in favour of William and Christopher Marks, was, or could be produced.
3. There is neither plea nor issue on the new declaration.
4.. Neither in the first nor second declaration is there any judgment of any kind set out or alleged against Belford upon which any execution could have issued against him.
After argument by Fisher for plaintiffs in error, and by Hale for defendant in error,

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tod, J.
There is no doubt of the power of the court below to permit the substitution of the amended narr. As clear it is, that though the defendants below might, if they thought fit, enter a new plea to the new declaration,, and it would have been regular to-have done so, yet they might elect to abide by their former plea of payment; and after a verdict, their going on to trial upon that plea must here be taken as conclusive proof that they did so elect. The slip in the name of Christopher, instead of Christian, cannot be assigned for error. The time to object to the variance was when the fieri facias, or the judgment was offered in evidence to the jury; yet the defect would probably then have been permitted to be cured at once by the amendment of the narr.
The main defect relied on is, the omission to aver the existence-of any judgment against Belford. What the case would be upon demurrer for this cause need not be decided. Admitting it to be a defect, I take it to be cured by the plea of payment and by the verdict. A breach is alleged in the words of the condition. Besides here the sheriff has collected the money on M. and C. Marks's-execution, and has it in his hands. Suppose then the very worst that is imagined in argument: — Suppose there is no judgment or an erroneous judgment, and that the execution will be set aside upon error; at whose expense will that be? Not the sheriff's. The writ of restitution must be executed upon W. and C. Marks, and the fieri facias is for ever a sufficient justification to the sheriff against Belford. At any rate, if the declaration is defective, the defect is .removed by the verdict. Brownfield v. The Commonwealth, for the use of Monro, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 265. Thompson v. Musser, 1 Dall. 461. Geyer v. Sailer, 6 Binn. 24. Lewis v. Ewing, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 44, appear conclusive upon the case.