Robinett v. Pollard
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THE plaintiff’had brought a suit on this cause of action, by summons, against the defendant to December term, 1835. In October, 1836, on filing an affidavit, the plaintiff issued a special capias ad respondendum against the defendant, and held him to bail.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff’had brought a suit on this cause of action, by summons, against the defendant to December term, 1835. In October, 1836, on filing an affidavit, the plaintiff issued a special capias ad respondendum against the defendant, and held him to bail. The court, on motion, quashed the writ on the ground that the act of the 13th of June, 1836, allowing a special capias to issue after a summons, did not extend to actions instituted before that act went into operation, i. e. on September 1, 1836.a The plaintiff then discontinued his suit by summons to December term, 1835, paid the costs,…
1Per curiam
The general rule undoubtedly is that the defendant shall not be held twice to bail for the same cause of action, unless under very special circumstances. 4 Yeates 206. The cases exhibit this rule, as, where the plaintiff is non-prossed for want of declaring, or regularly discontinues his suit on payment of costs, he may hold the defendant to hail de novo. 2 T. R. 756. So, if the plaintiff be nonsuited in an action of debt on bond, for not sufficiently proving the execution of it, on non esi factum, the defendant may be held to bail again, in an action upon the same bond. 14 Johns. 347. And if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- St. Clair v. RempublicamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1805