Case Name: BRITTON and Others, against STANLEY
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1836-02-06
Citations: 1 Whart. 267
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRITTON and Others, against STANLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
Volume: 1
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
[Philadelphia,
February 6,1836.]
BRITTON and Others, against STANLEY.
Under the 4th section of the 18th rule of this Court, judgment cannot be entered on a ver. diet rendered at Nisi Prius, within the first four days of the term, nor during the pendency of a motion for a new trial, unless the Court shall have ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff to stand as security. ‘
This was an action on the case brought in this Court to December Term, 1832, by Hall Britton, Aaron Wilson and George Ridgeley against Jesse Stanley. Issue being joined on the plea of non assumpsit, the cause came on for trial before Kennedy, J. at the Nisi Prius held in Philadelphia on the 2d of March, 1835, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for one thousand two hundred and seventy-four dollars and fifty cents. Judgment nisi was entered on this verdict on the 16th day of March, 1835, being the first day of March Term. On the same day on motion of Mr. W. M. Meredith, for the defendant, a rule was granted to show cause why a new trial should not be allowed; and reasons were filed conformably to the rule of Court.
On the 14th of April 1835, Mr. Meredith obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment entered on the verdict should not be struck off.
The question was argued at March Term last by Mr. Meredith, in favour of the rule, and Mr. J. R. lúgersoll against it, and was held under advisement until this day, when the opinion of the Court was delivered by

Opinion:
Sergeant, J.
Considerable doubt has been occasioned in this case by the practice which, it appears, has prevailed for a few years, for the prothonotary to enter judgment on the verdict, for the plaintiff, as soon as the jury fee is paid, sometimes at Nisi Prius and sometimes at the sitting of the Court in bank. .However correct this may formerly have been, yet it would seem that the case is provided for by the 4th section of the 18th rule of this Court, which directs, that in all cases of motions for a new trial or of verdicts subject tó the opinion of the court, the court may, on the report of the judge before whom the cause was tried, order judgment to be entered for the plaintiff to stand as security. No inconvenience can flow from this; for the plaintiff may at the first day of the court move for judgment, and if by the report of the judge who tried the cause, it is deemed proper he should have it as a security, it may be immediately ordered. This will prevent a loss to the plaintiff by the pendency of the motion in those cases where it is proper he should be secured by a judgment. In no case, however, can the judgment be entered until the jury fee is paid; nor until the sitting of the Court in bank.
Judgment taken off.