TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Rhoads

Commonwealth v. Rhoads, 9 Pa. 488 (1848)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 27, 1848
Judges
Gibson
Citations
9 Pa. 4881848 Pa. LEXIS 283
Headnotes
Under the act of 1783, a writ of error and not an appeal lies to a judgment of the Common Pleas on a forfeited recognisance. The appeal provided by that act, lies only to the orders of the court on applications to remit or moderate the forfeiture. Hence an appeal taken from the judgment, assigning errors in the proceedings, and also that the court should have remitted the forfeiture where the record did not show such an application was made to the court below, was quashed.
Summary
Appeal from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Jan. IT. This was an action of debt brought to December Term, 1845, on a recognisance of bail taken by the Recorder of the city of Philadelphia, in July, 1845, to answer in the Quarter Sessions a charge of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud; which recognisance had been forfeited by non-appearance. Judgment on the verdict was entered in June, 1846, and this appeal taken. Reside the errors assigned in the record and bill of exceptions, there were two, alleging the judgment to have been immoderate, under the circumstances of the case, and that the court below should have remitted the recognisance. But it did not appear, from'the record, that any application to remit had been made in the court below.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gibson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gibson, C. J.

There is no such thing as an appeal from a judgment in an action, according to the course of the common law, which is not given by statute; and this appeal has brought up the record of an action of debt for the penalty of a recognisance forfeited in the Quarter Sessions, and sued in the Common Pleas. The appellant relies on the second section of the act of 1T83, which declares such recognisances to he recoverable in the Common Pleas; “which courts” (the Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions) “may, and are hereby empowered to, order the said recognisance to be *489 levied, moderated, or remitted, on hearing the facts and circumstances of the case, according to equity and their legal discretion.” Perhaps either court may entertain the petition, but not at the trial. The abatement or remission of the penalty would have been more appropriately the act of the court in which the recognisance was forfeited; but the statute is peremptory. But from the order of either court there is an appeal. When that has been disposed of, or when the time has elapsed without an appeal, the recognisance may be sued in the Common Pleas for the sum fixed by the order, or for the amount of the penalty. At the date of the statute, an action of debt could be brought only for a specific sum, and that sum was consequently intended to be liquidated, where there was a petition to remit or abate, before the impetration of the writ. The petitioner, or perhaps the commonwealth, has an appeal to the Supreme Court from the order; but if he file no petition, or do not appeal in time, he waives his right, and the attorney-general, or the proper officer of the county, may proceed. If action be brought pending the appeal, its pendency may be pleaded in abatement of the writ. This course is plain, simple, and consistent; while it would be impossible, without inextricable confusion, to jumble together the petition to abate or remit, and the common-law proceeding by action for the entire penalty.

Appeal quashed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1897: 11931: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth v. Fogelman3 Pa. Super. 566 (1897)
  2. Commonwealth v. Barrett155 A. 95 (Pa. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Commonwealth v. Barrett155 A. 95 (Pa. 1931)
  2. Commonwealth v. Fogelman3 Pa. Super. 566 (1897)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list