Commonwealth v. Sisler

Decided May 21, 1900

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1900-05-21

Appeal, No. 101, Jan. T., 1900, by J. G. Sisler and G. W. Newcomer, from order.of O. P. Fayette County, Dec. T., 1899, No. 293, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Commonwealth to use v. J. G. Sisler and G. W. Newcomer. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court, and by the report of Slingluff v. Sisler, ante, p. 121.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1931

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1900-05-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

¶2This appeal raises in another form the same question which was decided in Slingluff, Johns & Co. v. Sisler, Newmyer’s *148Appeal, ante, p. 121, in which the opinion of the court has been filed. The action was on a bond given by the defendant and his surety, Newcomer, to enable the defendant to retain possession of the goods attached, the condition of the bond being that the debt and costs should be paid or the goods surrendered if the plaintiff recovered judgment in the attachment proceedings. The only defense set up by the affidavit is that the attachment proceeding has not been fully ended by a trial to determine whether there was fraud. As it has been held that this question was for the court, and was finally decided on the motion to dissolve the attachment, the defense fails. The order of the court entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed.