Cummings v. Meeker
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was a capias ad respondendum brought to March term, 1837. The sheriff took one surety in the bail bond, returned it, and gave notice to the plaintiff, under the 13th section of the act of 13th June, 1836, relating to the commencement of actions. (Stroud’s Purd, tit. Action.) The plaintiff did not except to the bail, but obtained this rule on the sheriff, to show cause why he should not bring in the body. The bond is a nullity.
Read the full summary
THIS was a capias ad respondendum brought to March term, 1837. The sheriff took one surety in the bail bond, returned it, and gave notice to the plaintiff, under the 13th section of the act of 13th June, 1836, relating to the commencement of actions. (Stroud’s Purd, tit. Action.) The plaintiff did not except to the bail, but obtained this rule on the sheriff, to show cause why he should not bring in the body. The bond is a nullity. The 9th section of the act of 13th June, 1836, says that the bond shall be with “ reasonable sureties.” The bond is not null. For the irregularity complained of,…
1Opinion of the Court
Pettit, President,
said the question presented was, whether under the act of the 13th June, 1836, entitled “ an act relating to the conjmencement of actions,” (Purdon’s Dig. 5 Ed. 40,) the bond was void, or if not absolutely void, how far, and under what circumstances it could be allowed to operate. He referred to the 9th section which speaks of “bond with reasonable sureties” and to other parts, particularly the 11th and 13th sections of the act in which the plural number is used in regard to the bail. He said, however, that the words “ surety of sufficient persons” in the stat. of 22 Hen.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fackenthall v. WightSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931