Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Gould

Citations

  • 48 Pa. Super. 528
  • 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 407

Syllabus

<p>Principal and surety — Appeal bond in ejectment — Courts—Juris-' diction.</p> <p>1. Where a judgment in ejectment of one of the courts of common pleas of Philadelphia county has been affirmed in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff subsequently brings an action of assumpsit upon the appeal bond in another of the courts of common pleas of Philadelphia county, and such court has maintained its jurisdiction and refused to transfer the case to the court in which the ejectment was brought, such order will not be reversed by the Supreme Court, especially when the appellant has not printed the rules of the court below and when it is impossible to see that the appellant was prejudiced in any way by the suit being brought in one court rather than the other.</p> <p>Principal and surety — Ejectment—Appeal bond — Mesne profits.</p> <p>2. Where in an action of ejectment a judgment is rendered against the defendant, and the latter takes an appeal in which he files a bond by which he and his surety undertake to pay “all mesne profits accruing after judgment,” the plaintiff in the ejectment after the af-firmance of the judgment may bring a suit upon the bond and recover mesne profits accruing after judgment without previously bringing a suit in trespass to liquidate the amount of the mesne profits.</p> <p>3. An appeal bond filed on an appeal from a judgment in ejectment by which the defendant and his surety undertake to “pay all mesne profits accruing after judgment,” is in substantial accord with the provisions of the appeals Act of May 19, 1897, sec. o, P. L. 67; and even if the bond were broader than the provisions of the act, a defense to it cannot be successfully maintained, if no question is raised that it was voluntarily executed and delivered, and that it was a direct undertaking on the part of the signers thereof to pay the mesne profits accruing after the judgment in ejectment upon the affirmance of that judgment..</p> <p>4. Where the conditions in a bond differ f

Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.