Young v. Commonwealth ex rel. Boals
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. F JSL* RROR to the Common Pleas of Indiana. The action below was debt against Young and two others as sureties in his official bond as coroner, taken in the usual form under die act of 28th March 1803. To this the defen^ants first pleaded non est factum and performance, with leave to give the special matters in evidence.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. F JSL* RROR to the Common Pleas of Indiana. The action below was debt against Young and two others as sureties in his official bond as coroner, taken in the usual form under die act of 28th March 1803. To this the defen^ants first pleaded non est factum and performance, with leave to give the special matters in evidence. On the 12th of June 1812, the plaintiff replied to the plea of performance, “ *he sa-id Samuel Young &c. have not kept and per- “ formed the condition of the aforesaid bond, but have “ broken the same, for that the said William Boals at the term “ September 1808, by…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The first error assigned in this case, is, that .the cause was tried without joining issue on two special pleas put in by the defendants below. It is said in answer to this objection, that the Court would not permit the pleas to ■ be put in, or what is the same thing, they decided that the -plaintiff might go on to trial without replying- to them. Although the act of 21st March 1806, authorizes the defendant to alter his plea or defence at any time on or before the trial, yet it must be understood that this is to be by permission of the Court; otherwise the defendant might…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- McCoy v. CurticeNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Colton v. Beardsley, Bigelow & SpoonerNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Griffith v. EshelmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Burk v. HuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.