Furry v. Stone
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Special assumpsit. Verdict for the plaintiff at last May assizes for Berks county, for 678I. 13s. 2d. Mr. Todd for the defendant, had moved within ine first four days of the term, for a rule to shew cause, why a new trial should not be granted. Messrs.
Read the full summary
Special assumpsit. Verdict for the plaintiff at last May assizes for Berks county, for 678I. 13s. 2d. Mr. Todd for the defendant, had moved within ine first four days of the term, for a rule to shew cause, why a new trial should not be granted. Messrs. Ingersoll and Tilghman for the plaintiff, now insisted that the motion should be dismissed; unless, agreeably to the 34th rule of practice of the court, notice in writing of the intended motion had first been given to the adverse party, or his attorney, ten days at least before the term commenced.' Mr. Todd admitted that the notice had been…
1Opinion of the Court
Sed per Cur.
The words of the rule are express, that the notice must be given ten days at least before the commencement * of the term. It will be to no purpose to make .■ rules, if an interpretation of them directly contrary to L the words is admitted. It is true, that in the case of Bradley’s lessee v. Bradley, tried at Nisi Prius for Dauphin county, the court went into a motion for a new trial, though the full ten days notice had not been given. But in that cause a point of evidence had been reserved at the trial, which had left the whole matter open to inquiry until judgment entered.
Motion…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. NewmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Wampler v. ShisslerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Pontius v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842