This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902. Excerpt: ... Rorabaugh v. Schrubb. that no defence to the bill existed. He had a right to rely on the presumption that the payee in whose possession it was continued to be its owner. From the foregoing the conclusion follows that the defendant's motion for judgment must be granted and the rule for new trial refused. Decree will be made accordingly. DECREE. Now, this 21st day of January, 1901, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto be and is hereby made absolute, and judgment is directed to be entered in favor of the defendant. From Oscar Mitchell, Esq., Clearfield, Pa. Rudolph, v. Sturgis. Judgment--Prior judgment--Discontinuance--Justice of the peace. There can be but one final judgment for the same cause of action; and where a judgment has already been obtained in a prior action by the plaintiff against the defendant for the identical demand, contract or obligation, the same is merged by the superiority of the record security acquired by the judgment, and the creditor can no longer prosecute suit upon the original demand. A plaintiff may withdraw or discontinue his suit at any time before judgment, or before the justice pronounces upon it; but after judgment unappealed from, if he discontinues, it is satisfaction of the demand. Plea in abatement. C. P. Montgomery Co. March T., 1900, No. 96. Larzelere, Gibson & Fox, for plaintiff. Evans, Holland & Dettra, for defendant. Weand, J., Nov. 23, 1900.--To this action the defendant has filed a plea in abatement that "about the beginning of December, 1899, a prior action of attachment for the same debt for which the present action is brought, was brought by said plaintiff against deponent (defendant) before Justice of the Peace M. A. Francis, of Lower Merion township, and that t...