Hayes v. Shields
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A Day had intervened after the delivery of the verdict in the cause preceding, when the lessor of the plaintiff was served with a summons, in aplea of trespass on the case, issued out of the Court of Common. Pleas of Westmoreland county.
1Opinion of the Court
Per cur.
It has frequently been resolved, that courts in cases of this nature, will not nicely scan the time of the return of parties, witnesses, &c. 2 Stra. 986, 987, 990, 1094. 1 Barnes. 278. 2 Bl. Sep. 1113. Gilb. Cas. C. R. 308. It is fair to presume, that the adjustment of the expenses of the action just tried, would detain him at least one day. His exemption from process is the privilege of the court. 2 Bl. Rep. 1193. Annal. 41. Dall. 357. The distinction between writs of summons and capais, is not solid, as it respects the present question, and was overruled in the case of the member of…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Matthews v. . TuftsNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Frank v. PeckichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Wangler v. HarveySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- Parker v. HotchkissU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1849
- Christian v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.