Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Pa. 469

Cunningham v. McCue

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1858

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1858-07-01

This was an action of debt originally brought before a justice of the peace by John McCue, Sr., and John McCue, Jr., against John Cunningham, to recover the penalty prescribed by the 15th section of the Act 20th March 1810, for neglecting to enter satisfaction on a judgment obtained before another justice, by the present defendant against the plaintiffs: Brightly’s Burd. 490, pi. 85.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1913

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The written notice requiring a plaintiff to enter satisfaction of a judgment before a justice of the peace, that is in fact satisfied, may be properly served by leaving a copy with his wife at his dwelling-house. This is a good service of a summons, and of a notice to a justice to tender amends for acts of official misfeasance under the Act of 21st March 1772, § 1, and those are sufficient analogies, though others might be named.

¶2It is objected, that the declaration is not good; and that is true. It is good for nothing; for it tells us nothing valuable about the claim. We treat it, therefore, as no declaration at all. And as the parties did not notice it on the trial, we may take them as treating it in the same way. A declaration that has only blanks at the places where definite averments ought to be, is no declaration. But parties may try appeal cases without pleadings, and we must regard.them as having done so in this instance; and the defendant cannot now raise the objection that the essential parts of the declaration are blank.

¶3We do not see any error in the case.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/31/pa/469 · .json · Public domain