Priestman v. Keyser
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
On the first day of this term, Biddle for the defendants obtained a rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why the proceedings in this suit, which was debt upon a bail bond, should not be discharged, and special bail entered in the original action. The original was brought to December term 1810; and the bail bond suit, to the present term.
Read the full summary
On the first day of this term, Biddle for the defendants obtained a rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why the proceedings in this suit, which was debt upon a bail bond, should not be discharged, and special bail entered in the original action. The original was brought to December term 1810; and the bail bond suit, to the present term. By the course of the Court, if bail had been regularly entered, the cause might have been set down for trial at the Nisi Prius after March term, and a judgment obtained at this term.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
directed the rule to be made absolute, upon the payment of costs in this suit, entering special bail, and giving the plaintiff a judgment in the original suit, (a) The plaintiff by these terms has every advantage that he could have had by the regular entry of special bail.
[Cited in 2 S. & R. 285, 286 ; 5 id. 51.]
By the entry on the docket, the judgment does not appear to be one of the terms imposed; but it is otherwise upon the notes of the Chief Justice, and seems to be an essential part of the Court’s order.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Union Bank v. KraftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1816
- Bobyshall v. OppenheimerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1822
- Carrew v. Willing, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1785
- M'Farland v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Stockton v. ThrogmortonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1830