Byrne v. Hayden

Citations

• 124 Pa. 170
• 16 A. 750
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1017

Syllabus

<p>In an action upon a penal bond conditioned for the performance of a °°Ua,tera.l undertaking, the plaintiff must not only aver, but, unless relieved by the pleadings, must prove, the breach as well as the damages sustained thereby, and the judgment should be for the penalty of the bond, to be released upon payment of the ascertained damages oc- ■ casioned by the breach.</p> <p>2. The proper measure of damages for the breach of a claimant’s bond in sheriff’s interpleader, is the value of the goods which according to the condition of the bond should have been forthcoming to answer the plaintiff’s execution, and not the judgment, or the balance of the judgment, on which the execution issued.</p> <p>3. The making and delivery of the claimant’s bond does not discharge the goods claimed from the lien of the execution or substitute the bond for the goods, but operates merely as a transfer of the goods from the custody of the sheriff to that of the claimant, pending the determination of the issue as to their ownership.</p> <p>4. If the plaintiff’s statement of claim, in an action upon such bond, do not aver the value of the goods turned over to the claimant, as well as that they were not forthcoming at the determination of the issue in his favor, it is insufficient to entitle him to judgment for want of an affidavit of defence.</p> <p>5. The plaintiff’s statement under the act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271, is of wider scope than the affidavit of defence law: it is a substitute for a formal declaration, and must exhibit a complete cause of action in such clear, express and unequivocal language, that if material averments are not denied by the defendant, a judgment in default may be entered and liquidated.</p> <p>6. The practice under the sheriff’s interpleader act is shown in this case, as well as in Bain v. Lyle, 68 Pa. 60; O’Neill v. Wilt, 75 Pa. 266; Phillips v. Reagan, 75 Pa. 381; Zacharias v. Totton, 90 Pa. 286.</p>