Roop v. Meek
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county. A capias had been issued* by the.plaintiffs, Roop and Brubacker, executors of Brubacker against Meek, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county, and the sheriff returned “ cepi corpus and bail bond.” Afterwards, special bail not being entered for several terms, the plaintiffs took an assignment of the bail bond, and brought this suit upon it against Meek and the bail.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county. A capias had been issued* by the.plaintiffs, Roop and Brubacker, executors of Brubacker against Meek, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin county, and the sheriff returned “ cepi corpus and bail bond.” Afterwards, special bail not being entered for several terms, the plaintiffs took an assignment of the bail bond, and brought this suit upon it against Meek and the bail. The suit was arbitrated, and after ,an award made in favour of the plaintiffs, the Court below on motion, stayed the proceedings, on payment of costs in the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The proceedings on a bail bond are so much •within the discretion of the Court in which the action is depending, in any order they may make as to summary relief, that a writ of error will not lie. The statute of 4 Anne, chap. 16. sect. 20, regulating the assignment and proceedings on the bail bond suit, in explicit terms, gives to the Court a plenary power. The language is decisive, “and the Court where the action is brought, niay, by rule or rules of the same Court, give such relief to the plaintiff or defendant, in the original action and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Burk v. HuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Bowman v. Sharp & CarmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Pepper v. Doores, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1835