Sargent v. Richards

Decided June 9, 1884

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1884-06-09

Nos. 384, January Term, and 8, July Term, 1884. The plaintiff in error is a resident qf Crawford County, and was, at the time these suits were brought, engaged as a contract- or drilling oil wells in Warren County. He had several men in his employ, and among them were Richards & Covanhoven, the defendants in error, and David Hola, who was his foreman. He was indebted to Richards and Covanhoven for a balance on-their wages, and Covanhoven assigned his claim to Richards.

Decided 1884-06-09

¶1The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Common Pleas on June 9th, 1884, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

¶2These two cases were argued together. They present the same question. We cannot look beyond the records. Each transcript shows the parties appeared, and that the plaintiff in error was present at the trial. The fact that he was sworn and testified as a witness for the defendants, does not destroy the legal effect of his presence. The want of service was cured. If aggrieved his only remedy under the special acts applicable to this county was by Appeal, unless, he brought himself within the proviso to the 7th section of the Act of March 28, 1870, P. Laws, 596; Pur. Dig, 856. This he did not do; Hill vs. Olmstead, 1 W. N. C, 387.

¶3Judgment in each case affirmed.