Borlin v. Highberger
| Decision Date | 15 October 1883 |
| Citation | 104 Pa. 143 |
| Parties | Borlin et al. <I>versus</I> Highberger. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ., PAXSON, J., absent.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland county: Of October and November Term 1883, No. 29.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jacob Turney (with him Silas A. Kline and H. Byers Kuhns), for the plaintiffs in error.—The record at No. 331, Feb. T. 1878, which was offered to support the plaintiff's action, purported to be a certified copy of the recognizance of the sheriff of Westmoreland county. This was not sufficient upon which to found the judgment upon which the sci. fa. issued. The Act of Assembly of 15th April 1834, § 74, provides that the recorder of deeds shall "certify the recognizance taken by him to the prothonary," who files it in his office and enters judgment upon it, when it becomes a lien. The recognizance thus becomes a part of the roll of the court of record: Dunn v. Commonwealth, 14 S. & R. 433.
The prothonotary, having of his own volition, and without any fraud being practiced upon him, placed his receipts for the sums claimed to be due him, upon the record, he cannot, after his official duties have determined, contradict the records of the court by parol testimony. To permit him to do so would be to open a wide door to fraud, and is clearly against public policy.
Head (Morehead and Sloan with him), for the defendant in error.
The opinion of the court was filed October 15th 1883.
As the record was amended, this scire facias was on the recognizance, and not on the judgment. It is true the 74th section of the Act of 15th April 1834, authorizes the recorder of deeds to certify the recognizance of the sheriff, taken by him, to the prothonotary. This is for the purpose of creating a lien on real estate, and thereby increasing the security of all persons interested in the proper discharge of the sheriff's duties. Non constat, that those who entered into the recognizance would not be liable without such certificate. We think however that the filing in the prothonotary's office of a duly certified copy of the recognizance is a compliance with the meaning of the statute. The receipts were not conclusive. Parol evidence was properly received to explain the circumstances under which they were executed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rand v. King
...which is open to correction: Shoemaker v. Stiles, 102 Pa. 549; Russell v. Church, 65 Pa. 9; Wharton on Contracts, § 938; Borlin v. Highberger, 104 Pa. 143; McGrann v. Railroad Co., 111 Pa. 171. The promise given for it is not enforceable against the appellant: Act of April 26, 1855, P.L. 30......
-
, Feb. T., 1927, No. 19.
...being made to use it for another, which would amount to fraud. See Dutton v. Tilden, 13 Pa. 46; Batdorf v. Albert, 59 Pa. 59; Borlin v. Highberger, 104 Pa. 143. In Guhl v. Frank, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 531, it was said: "A receipt for money is prima facie evidence of payment, but is not conclu......