Commonwealth v. Pennock

Decided May 20, 1817

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1817-05-20

Indictment. moved for a writ of error upon an indictment and sentence or the defendant for burglary, on the ground that the indictment stated the breaking and entering to be into a mansion house, and not a dwelling house. And also that the Court made it a part of their Sentence, that the defendant’s goods and chattels should be forfeited, and that his lands and tenements should be forfeited for life.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2018

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“although the judgment would have been better without it, yet the defendant suffered no injury by it; as the law would have implied the forfeiture , though not part of the judgment.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth, Aplt v. Irland, J (Semi-Auto Pistol)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-05-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court

¶1refused to grant a writ of error. They were of opinion, that the house was sufficiently described as a dwelling house by the word mansion. And as to the forfeiture, although the judgment would have been better without it, yet the defendant suffered no injury by it; as the law would have implied the forfeiture, though not part of the judgment. Writs of error ought not to be allowed merely for the sake of reversing a judgment, where the merits have been fairly tried, and the defendant has suffered no wrong by the judgment.

¶2Motion denied.