<p>Appeal, No. 87, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, Margaret Basendorf, from order of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dee. T., 1881, No. 1, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.</p> <p>Scire facias sur recognizance.</p> <p>The record showed that defendant had, on Feb. 16, 1891, entered into recognizance for the appearance of Kate McNamara before the court of quarter sessions. The following entry appeared, “ Recognizance forfeited, IMay 5, 1891.”</p> <p>The defendant averred in her affidavit of defence that Kate McNamara, the prisoner, had a hearing before John Gripp, Esq., alderman, within and for the city of Pittsburgh, and was, by the said alderman, on Jan. 26, 1891, committed to the jail of Allegheny county, for trial at the following March term of the court, whereupon the jurisdiction and power of the aider-man and the recognizance afterward taken by him on Fob. 16, 1891, on which the scire facias issued is void.</p> <p>The court made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, in an opinion by MoClunu, J., on the authority of Moore v. Com., 6 W. & S. 314; 2 Pars. 458; Fox v. Com., 81* Pa. 511.</p> <p>Error assigned was entry of judgment as above.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-01-03
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 1959
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1We think the court below was right in entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. The magistrate had the right to take the recognizance, and the short entry of “ Recognizance forfeited, May 5, 1891,” is conclusive in this case that the defendant and the bail were called and did not appear.