Springer's Administrators v. Springer et al.
| Decision Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Citation | 43 Pa. 518 |
| Parties | Springer's Administrators <I>versus</I> Springer <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The executors of John Springer paid this judgment, it is said, and afterwards, by order of the court, obtained subrogation against Uriah Springer for one-third of it, and for this the plaintiff (so stands the record) brings this writ of error. But this is a matter in which this plaintiff has no concern. His claim is satisfied, and he has no right to interfere with any disposition which the court thinks proper to make of the judgment as between the defendants. If anybody could bring error on such an order it would be Uriah Springer, or his lien-creditors, for the order is against him, and he and they alone can be wronged by it. Doubtless it is intended for their benefit.
But a writ of error is always a suit between the very parties to the record, and is founded on the allegation that there is error in it, and we do not see error in this one; for where sureties are sued and judgment obtained, and one of them pays, he may be subrogated to the judgment so as to obtain contribution: 9 Watts 451; 2 Rawle 128; and this record does not show that these defendants were not all sureties.
No one can suppose that such an order as this can, in strict practice, be a subject of a writ of error, for that is a common law writ, and no such order was known in common law practice. Let any one study how to issue a writ of error in proper form, who are to be the parties, what is to be sent up as record, and what errors may be assigned as in the record in such a case, and he will see that this remedy is quite an inappropriate one.
True enough, it has been used very often; but this was manifestly by indulgence as to the form in favour of the right of review. Because the parties had a right to a review the court did not object to this form, when it could be used with effect, and when no other was suggested, nor would we now sacrifice the right to the form, or even stop to require a more perfect form, if we had the means of an effectual and complete review of this case in this form; for we would avoid, if possible, the correction of a common error in practice at the expense of suitors, and without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craddock's Adm'rm v. Craddock's Adm'r
...Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 14 S. Ct. 452, 38 L Ed. 305; Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Rockefeller, 98 C. C. A. 8, 174 F. 22, 29; Springer's Adm'rs v. Springer, 43 Pa. 518, 519; Rand v. King, 134 Pa. 641, 645, 19 A. 806; Nickey v. Leader, 235 Mo. 30, 138 S. W. 18; Western, etc., Works v. Leavenwort......
-
Brothers v. Goodman
... ... Even the ... creditor cannot prevent subrogation to his rights of the one ... who pays: Springer's Admrs. v. Springer, 43 Pa ... 518; Com. v. Froelich, 56 Pa.Super. 604 ... Goldentyer ... ...
-
Bankers' Sur. Co. v. Linder
...of the judgment as between the defendants, or the surety and the principal debtor or some stranger to the original litigation. Springer v. Springer, 43 Pa. 518. These rules all apply to suits or judgments held by the creditor. Edgerly v. Emerson, 23 N. H. 555, 55 Am. Dec. 207. [9][10] It fo......
-
Bankers' Surety Co. v. Linder
...of the judgment as between the defendants, or the surety and the principal debtor or some stranger to the original litigation. Springer v. Springer, 43 Pa. 518. These rules apply to suits or judgments held by the creditor. Edgerly v. Emerson, 23 N.H. 555 (55 Am. Dec. 207). It follows from w......