Commonwealth v. Rooney

Citations

• 167 Pa. 244
• 31 A. 562
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 886

Syllabus

<p>Constables — Return—Parol evidence to explain the return — Principal and surety.</p> <p>In an action on a constable’s bond to recover damages for the alleged neglect of the constable to appraise or sell goods upon which he had levied, parol evidence is admissible to explain the return oí the constable, which was unintelligible without such proof.</p> <p>In this case the constable’s return was as follows: “ Exemption claimed by wife of defendant and A. S. Walters and Girard Walters and C. R. Noyes, and indemnity refused by plaintiff.” Held, that parol evidence was properly admissible to show that the personal property which was levied upon was claimed by A. S. Walters, Girard Walters, and C. R. Noyes as their property, and that the constable received written notices of these claims; that he then demanded indemnityfrom theplaintiff, and that when this was refused the execution was returned without a sale.</p>