Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Watts 176

Stevenson v. Docherty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 15, 1834

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1834-09-15

This was an action of debt, brought by William Docherty against Samuel Stevenson and James Taylor, on a recognizance to prosecute a writ of error. The plaintiff below entered a rule of reference under the compulsory arbitration law. At the meeting of the arbitrators there was no attendance or acquiescence on the part of the defendants. An award was filed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of the recognizance, and judgment thereon entered.

Relies on Hill v. Crawford

Decided 1834-09-15

Per Curiam.

¶1The ground taken is,' that no cause which may be made by the pleadings to turn on the existence and inspection of a record, is within the compulsory arbitration laws. If that were decisive, those laws would be a dead letter; for there is no action on which an issue of law may not be joined by the plea, for instance, of a former recovery. In Roop v. Meek it is intimated that an action on a bail bond is not within their purview; but chiefly because the discretionary power to give summary relief is lodged by the statute with the court alone. In Hill v. Crawford, 8 Serg. & Rawle 477, it was held that a scire facias on a judgment may be referred under the act of 1810. There, as here, the objection was that arbitrators are incompetent to try an issue of law; and there, as here, it was uncertain whether such an issue would be joined, it being conceded that the plea of mil tiel record was put in after the rule of reference. The authority of that case therefore is decisive of the point.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/3/watts/176 · .json · Public domain