White v. Fitler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. April 25. The plaintiff had commenced an action by capias against Bremond, which writ was returned, C. C. & B. B. Exceptions to the bail were filed, and notice given to the sheriff. There was no justification nor new bail entered. After the notice, plaintiff declared and proceeded to judgment. A fi. fa. and ca. sa.' was issued and returned, N. B. & N. E. I. The present action was against the sheriff for taking insufficient bail.
Read the full summary
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. April 25. The plaintiff had commenced an action by capias against Bremond, which writ was returned, C. C. & B. B. Exceptions to the bail were filed, and notice given to the sheriff. There was no justification nor new bail entered. After the notice, plaintiff declared and proceeded to judgment. A fi. fa. and ca. sa.' was issued and returned, N. B. & N. E. I. The present action was against the sheriff for taking insufficient bail. The plaintiff gave in evidence the record of two actions on the bond against the bail, which were prosecuted to judgment, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
We find nothing in the argument to shake our confidence in the principle of Fitler v. Bryson, 6 Watts & Serg. 566, and the Commonwealth v. Heilman, 4 Barr, 555, that filing a declaration, or .going to trial, is as much a waiver of exceptions to bail, since the statute of 1836, as it was before it. The argument to the contrary is, that, as that act has altered the form of the capias ad respondendum, and substituted for the command to have the defendant before the court at the return of the writ, a command to keep him till he should give bail, it would be anoma-' lous and oppressive to rule the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fitler v. BrysonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fackenthall v. WightSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Blose v. Corkins, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mifflin County1934