Gracy v. Bailee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN error. On the trial of this cause, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, the plaintiffs in error, who were also plaintiffs below, offered the depositions of witnesses, taken under a commission to Baltimore: after having proved service of notice of the commission and a copy of the interrogatories, on the defendant’s attorney; the counsel for the defendant objected to the testimony, because the notice had not been served on the party, agreeably to a rule of…
Read the full summary
IN error. On the trial of this cause, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, the plaintiffs in error, who were also plaintiffs below, offered the depositions of witnesses, taken under a commission to Baltimore: after having proved service of notice of the commission and a copy of the interrogatories, on the defendant’s attorney; the counsel for the defendant objected to the testimony, because the notice had not been served on the party, agreeably to a rule of court. The objection was sustained by the court, who sealed a bill of exceptions. At a subsequent stage of the cause, the…
1Opinion of the Court
*128The opinion of the court was delivered by
Huston, J.
The plaintiffs offered in evidence the commission to take the deposition of a witness in Baltimore. This was objected to, because notice of the commission and interrogatories was not served agreeably to the rule of court. The proof was that the notice was served on defendant’s attorney, who made no objection to receiving it whatever. The rule of court in this county on the subject is a copy of the rule of the Circuit Court of the year 1805, and requires the notice to, be served on the adverse party. That rule was well understood — under it a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nash v. GilkesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Newlin v. NewlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822