Martin v. Kaffroth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On the return of a writ of error from the court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, accompanied by five bills of exceptions to evidence, it appeared, that on the 26th of April, 1821, judgment was entered in the court below in favour of Jacob Kaffroth, the defendant in error, against Jacob Martin and George Kuss, the plaintiffs in error, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, accompanying a bond dated the 18th of March, 1807, conditioned for the payment of three…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On the return of a writ of error from the court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, accompanied by five bills of exceptions to evidence, it appeared, that on the 26th of April, 1821, judgment was entered in the court below in favour of Jacob Kaffroth, the defendant in error, against Jacob Martin and George Kuss, the plaintiffs in error, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, accompanying a bond dated the 18th of March, 1807, conditioned for the payment of three hundred and seventy-five pounds by the latter to the former, on the 20th of May, 1807. On motion this judgment was opened by…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
Abuses of the rule to take depositions may undoubtedly occur; and where they appear, it will be proper to correct them. But nothing of the sort appears by the bill of exceptions; the question having been decided on the abstract right of the party to take a second deposition without the leave of. the court, or cause shown: a right which I have never’ before heard doubted. On the contrary, it is- notorious that the practice to reexamine as often as occasion may require, is general, if not universal. But'were this otherwise, still the prior…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Watson v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
- Wolle v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839