Schwenk v. Umsted
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. A WRIT of error having issued to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, the following extract from the docket of that Court was sent up with the record: Jacob Umsted,~\ v. John Schwenk. J Montgomery county, May Terra, 1818. “NOV. 18th, 1818. 7 ,, r™ 1 • . . , . . “ lhe struck jury and view heing called, the defendant claimed the right to challenge peremptorily, Francis Bigony, the first named person who had been on the view, and appeared.
Read the full summary
In Error. A WRIT of error having issued to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, the following extract from the docket of that Court was sent up with the record: Jacob Umsted,~\ v. John Schwenk. J Montgomery county, May Terra, 1818. “NOV. 18th, 1818. 7 ,, r™ 1 • . . , . . “ lhe struck jury and view heing called, the defendant claimed the right to challenge peremptorily, Francis Bigony, the first named person who had been on the view, and appeared. The Court refused to allow the peremptory challenge, but said either of the parties might challenge for cause.any of the view, or peremptorily,…
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
One single question arises on this record:—Can a party challenge any of the viewers peremptorily under the act of 4th April, 1809, which provides, “ that in all civil suits each party shall be allowed to challenge two jurors peremptorily.55 The several acts respecting jurors are to be considered collectively, as forming one general system, and explanatory of *354each other. The sense and spirit of this privilege is, that a party shall possess the power of challenging at least two persons wjj0 rnáy be obnoxious to him, but against whom there is no legal-exception as jurors. This is a proper…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. FarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842