2 U.S. 105 (1790)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

TODD v. THOMPSON, 2 U.S. 105 (1790)

2 U.S. 105 (Dall.)


Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June Term, 1790

This cause being marked for trial, it was continued by the plaintiff; whereupon the defendant's counsel moved for a rule to try at the next term, or non pros. This, however,

Page 2 U.S. 105, 106

was opposed, the plaintiff's counsel alledging, that there was no default on his part, as the procrastination arose, in fact, from the absence of a material witness, and the late arrival of a record from New Jersey, which was so imperfectly exemplified, that it could not be offered in evidence. To this it was answered, that there had been no subpoena taken out for the absent witness; and that as the action had been depending for more than two years, there was evidently a laches in not obtaining the exemplification sooner.

By the Court: It is certainly a great default, that an earlier application was not made for the exemplification; and

Page 2 U.S. 105, 107

that instructions were not given to some person, to see that it was regularly made out. On that ground alone, therefore, the motion must be granted. But even if the plaintiff had not been guilty of a laches; if it was a misfortune, and not negligence, that had prevented the seasonable arrival of the record, we should still doubt the propriety of refusing the rule.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.