Devereux v. Esling
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Feb. 29. Esling having been arrested on a capias in an action of trespass vi et armis, gave bond for appearance with Devereux as his bail. This instrument recited that Esling was arrested, &c., in a certain action of trespass on the case. On the trial of the action on the bail-bond, the recovery in the action of trespass was proved — the affidavit to hold to bail laying a violent beating as the cause of action.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Feb. 29. Esling having been arrested on a capias in an action of trespass vi et armis, gave bond for appearance with Devereux as his bail. This instrument recited that Esling was arrested, &c., in a certain action of trespass on the case. On the trial of the action on the bail-bond, the recovery in the action of trespass was proved — the affidavit to hold to bail laying a violent beating as the cause of action. Jones, P. J., was requested to instruct the jury that the variance was fatal; he, however, left it to them as a question of fact,…
1Per curiam
The English cases on which the counsel of the bail relies, were decided upon the English statute, which introduced in that country a strictness of description unknown to any previous statute in the common law; and they are, consequently, without authority in cases arising on the statute here. His argument is, that the bail ¡might have been entirely willing to execute a bond for the appearance of a prisoner arrested in an action on the case, but decisively unwilling to do so, knowing him to be arrested for an assault and battery. The consequence is barely possible, and the supposed injury,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McFarland v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893