Sliver v. Shelback
Supreme Court of the United States
This was a question on a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment in the common pleas of Philadelphia county, against the plaintiff in error, when within age. The record of the court below stated, that the defendant (now plaintiff) appeared in person, imparled to the next term, and then appeared and said nothing ; wherefore, &c. The plaintiff attained his full age, before he brought the writ of error.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court, in substance as follows :
McKean, Chief Justice.
At the common law, there could be no appearance in any suit, real, personal or mixed, whether as plaintiff or defendant, but in proper person ; except where the King, by virtue of his prerogative, granted his writ for an attorney ; and where an infant appeared to defend a suit by his guardian. The statute of West. II., a. 15, declares that if an infant is eloigned, so that he cannot sue personally, his next friend shall be admitted to sue for him ; and c. 10 of the same statute, enables all…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Knox v. FlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Hamilton v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- McMurray's Heirs v. City of ErieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Moore v. M'EwenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819