Bradbury v. Wagenhorst
| Decision Date | 18 February 1867 |
| Citation | 54 Pa. 180 |
| Parties | Bradbury <I>versus</I> Wagenhorst. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before WOODWARD, C. J., THOMPSON, READ and AGNEW, JJ. STRONG, J., at Nisi Prius
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county.
F. B. Gowen, for plaintiff in error, cited Burkhart v. Parker, 6 W. & S. 480; Philadelphia Savings Institution v. Smith, 10 Barr 13.
D. B. Green, for defendant in error, cited Charlton v. Allegheny City, 1 Grant 208.
The opinion of the court was delivered, February 18th 1867, by THOMPSON, J.
It is not easy to discover the process by which we are to decide that there is a practice in Schuylkill county on the subject of affidavits of defence, which disregards and sets aside an Act of Assembly to regulate the practice on that subject. It is true the defendant in error alleges that there is, but the plaintiff in error denies it, and this is all we have on the subject, the court being silent on the point. The Act of the 14th April 1851 provides that in all actions instituted in the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county, on "bills, notes, &c.," in all actions of scire facias on mortgages, judgments, and on liens of mechanics and material-men under the Act of 17th March 1856, and the various supplements thereto," the plaintiff may, after a time fixed after the return-day of the writ, not less than twenty days, take judgment by default, a declaration or statement having been filed against the defendant, notwithstanding an appearance, unless the defendant shall have previously filed an affidavit of defence: "Provided, That in all such cases no judgment shall be entered by virtue of this act, unless the plaintiff shall, within two weeks after the returning of the original process, file in the office of the prothonotary of the court aforesaid a copy of the instrument of writing, book-entries, record or claim, except mortgages on which action has been brought."
After putting in the same category notes, bills, book-accounts, &c., mortgages and mechanics' liens, mortgages were excepted out of the claims copies of which must be filed. They alone were excepted, and in all the other enumerated cases the copies were required to be filed, and among them are mechanics' liens and judgments. The argument is that there is no necessity for a copy of claims, since the Lien Law requires a bill of particulars of the claim to be filed in order to make a lien.
The legislature are not to be presumed to have been ignorant of this, for they refer to the act, and notwithstanding require the copy of the claim to be filed to entitle the plaintiff to judgment. The object of giving the particulars in the one case was to show what the lien was for, and in the other it was to be filed in court to be the foundation of a judgment.
The legislature might require this, and it was quite as reasonable as to require a copy of a judgment to be filed, as is the case in this act. It is possible it might have been thought that there might be a difference sometimes between the particulars in the lien and that of the claim. The one might contain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Combs v. Homer Center School Dist.
..."[w]hen the words of a statute are plainly expressive of an intent, the interpretation must be in accordance therewith." Bradbury v. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. 180 (1867). Conversely, when a statutory term is ambiguous on its face, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by (1) the......
-
Sams v. St. Louis & M. R. Co.
...legitimate function to interpret legislation, but not to supply its omissions." Citing Sedgwick on Stat. & Const. Law, 231. In Bradbury v. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. 180, the statute required a copy of the instrument sued on to be filed with the clerk before judgment should be entered. It was conte......
-
Park, Grant, & Morris v. Nordale
...Propst v. Southern etc. Co. (N. C.) 51 S.E. 920; Slingluff v. Weaver (Ohio) 64 N.E. 574; Union etc. Co. v. Com. 69 Pa. 140; Bradbury v. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. 180; Ex parte (S.D.) 114 N.W. 303; State v. Montella etc. Co. (Utah) 98 P. 540; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95; Atlantic etc. ......
-
Berks County v. Reading City Passenger Railway Co.
...Atty. General v. Lombard St. Ry., 1 W.N.C. 489; Penna. Ry. Co.'s App., 115 Pa. 525; Pa. S.V.R.R. v. P. & R.R.R., 157 Pa. 42; Bradbury v. Wagonhorst, 54 Pa. 180. court has the power under the act of June 19, 1871, to inquire into the question of the power of appellants to accept the act of M......