TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sloan v. McKinstry

Sloan versus McKinstry

Sloan v. McKinstry, 18 Pa. 120 (1851)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 20, 1851
Judges
Rogers
Citations
18 Pa. 1201851 Pa. LEXIS 240
Headnotes
1. Under the 17th section of the Act of 20th March, 1810, relative to justices of the peace, a transcript of a judgment obtained against a defendant intended to be forwarded to another county for proceeding thereon by scire facias on the judgment, may be given by a person in possession of the dochet of the deceased justice by whom the judgment was rendered, though not himself a justice of the peace at the time of giving the transcript. 2. It was stated in the docket entry of the justice, that the summons was “returned on oath,” but without returning that it had been served: It was held, that the judgment rendered by the justice was not void, but merely irregular, and in a scire facias thereon was conclusive till reversed or set aside by a legal proceeding.
Summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Jefferson county. This was a scire facias in the name of J. H. Sloan, assignee of John Truby, v. Alexander McKinstry, issued by William Davis, Esq., a justice of the peace in and for the county of Jefferson, to revive a judgment rendered by David Johnston, Esq., on the 9th day of August; a. d. 1836, against the said Alexander McKinstry and one William Irvine; the said David Johnston being at that time an acting justice of the peace in the county of Armstrong. After the rendition of the judgment in 1836, David Johnston died, and was succeeded in the office of justice of the peace by his son, John R. Johnston, who made and certified the transcript which is the foundation of this suit; the docket of the said David Johnston, being in the possession of the said John R. Johnston, at the time of his being commissioned a justice of the peace, and still continued in his custody at the time the transcript was made out, although he had gone out of office a short time previous to his making out the transcript. Upon the judgment rendered by David Johnston, deceased, a scire facias was issued by the said William Davis, Esq., on the 11th day of November, 1846, returnable the 21st day of the same month. The scire facias was returned, served on McKinstry, and as to Irvine, that he was not in the county. McKinstry appeared before the justice, and the cause was continued from time to time, until the 25th February, 1847, when it was tried, and judgment given against plaintiff for costs; no person being present on behalf of the plaintiff. From the judgment thus rendered, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Jefferson. The cause came on for trial in the Common Pleas on the 16th May, 1849, on the plea of payment. A special appearance had been entered for McKinstry alone, and the cause was, only tried as to him. The plaintiff offered in evidence the transcript of the judgment rendered by David Johnston, on the 9th August, 1836, which was objected to by defendant’s counsel because it was certified by John R. Johnston, and not by the executors of David Johnston, and because the docket-entry of the return of summons was “ returned on oath,” and did not say served. The Court below (McCalmont, President Judge), sustained the second objection and rejected the transcript, to which plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff then offered the depositions of John R. Johnston and Wm. W. Hastings, in connexion with the transcript, which were objected to by defendant’s counsel and rejected by the Court, to which plaintiff again excepted. No further testimony was offered. The verdict and judgment were for the defendant. The deposition of Johnston related to the date and amount of the judgment, and to conversations with McKinstry and with John Brown, who said that he had been appointed the agent of Irvine to settle up his business. It was assigned for error: 1. The Court erred in rejecting the transcript of the judgment rendered by David Johnston, deceased. 2. In rejecting the depositions of John R. Johnston and Wm. W. Hastings.

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

Opinion of the Court — Rogers

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by Rogers, J.

The defendant in error contends that the Court' properly sustained the plaintiff’s objection to the transcript, on two grounds: 1. Because John R. Johnston had no authority to give the transcript from the docket of David Johnston; and, 2. Because the transcript sets out the return of a summons, but does not show it was served.

The first exception is disposed of by the 17th section of the Act of the 20th March, 1810. That Act enacts, “ If the party defendant shall not reside in the county where a judgment is had against him before a justice of the peace, the person in possession of the docket in which such judgment may be entered, on application to him made by the plaintiff, or his agent, shall make out, certify, and deliver to such applicant, a transcript thereof,” &c. The plaintiff has brought himself precisely within the words and spirit of the Act.

Nor do we think there is anything in the second exception. The decision is founded on an entire misapprehension of the law. The judgment is not void; if anything, it is voidable merely, and might have been reversed. If any point is settled, it is that a voidable judgment is binding and conclusive until reversed or set aside by a legal proceeding. It is needless to cite authorities in support of a principle so plain.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11948: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Vichosky v. Boucher60 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948)
  2. Podol v. Shevlin130 A. 264 (Pa. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Vichosky v. Boucher60 A.2d 381 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1948)
  2. Podol v. Shevlin130 A. 264 (Pa. 1925)

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