Dubois v. Turner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
questioned the legality of the 64th rule of practice of this court, made on the 30th December 1797, requiring the certificate of counsel to be subjoined to the affidavit of the defendant, before he shall be entitled to a special jury. The act of 19th March 1785, (2 Dali. St. Laws * , 1 *267, § 17,) directs, that either the plaintiff or defendant ’ I shall lawfully enter a rule for a special jury, in any civil action.
Read the full summary
questioned the legality of the 64th rule of practice of this court, made on the 30th December 1797, requiring the certificate of counsel to be subjoined to the affidavit of the defendant, before he shall be entitled to a special jury. The act of 19th March 1785, (2 Dali. St. Laws * , 1 *267, § 17,) directs, that either the plaintiff or defendant ’ I shall lawfully enter a rule for a special jury, in any civil action. And the act of 27th March 1789, § 3, (lb. 691,) only makes a provision for the defendant’s entry of the rule in the Supreme Court, or at Nisi Prius; that he shall make affidavit…
1Opinion of the CourtTilghman, C. J.
afterwards on the 28th March 1807, declared, that the court had modified the rule complained of, so far as to supersede the necessity of the certificate of counsel, previous to the defendant’s obtaining a rule for a special jury. The court *362necessarily possessed the incidental power of establishing rules for the regulation of its practice, independently of the act of 25th September 1786. There was no occasion of deciding here, how far the rule was compatible with the constitution.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Equipment Corp. of America v. Primos Vanadium Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Duke v. TrippeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849