CATON v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 141 (1792)

U.S. Supreme Court

CATON v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 141 (1792)

2 U.S. 141 (Dall.)

Caton, Assignee of the Sheriff
v.
M'Carty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January Term, 1792

Levy had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings on the bail-bond should not be staid, on the ground that the plaintiff had accepted the defendant's appearance, by filing a declaration in the original action. This he contended was a waiver of bail, and cited Highm. 153. 157. Lilly P. R. 86. Barnes. 257. Rich. Prac. 132. Poph. 145.

Heatly, in reply, urged that the English practice had never been extended here; and if it was, the declaration ought to have been delivered, before it could have had effect. 2 Term. Rep. 112. 1 Cromp. 94. Impey. Prac. 94. Rule. B. R 23. 24.

By the Court: It has been the practice in Pennsylvania to file declarations before appearance. In the case of summons the act requires that it should be filed days before the return day. It has never yet been determined, that the filing a declaration is a waiver of bail: We have no such rule; and, unless

Page 2 U.S. 141, 142

some substantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the practice contended for, the Court will not alter the usual course.

Rule discharged.


U.S. Supreme Court

CATON v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 141 (1792)

2 U.S. 141 (Dall.)

Caton, Assignee of the Sheriff
v.
M'Carty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January Term, 1792

Levy had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings on the bail-bond should not be staid, on the ground that the plaintiff had accepted the defendant's appearance, by filing a declaration in the original action. This he contended was a waiver of bail, and cited Highm. 153. 157. Lilly P. R. 86. Barnes. 257. Rich. Prac. 132. Poph. 145.

Heatly, in reply, urged that the English practice had never been extended here; and if it was, the declaration ought to have been delivered, before it could have had effect. 2 Term. Rep. 112. 1 Cromp. 94. Impey. Prac. 94. Rule. B. R 23. 24.

By the Court: It has been the practice in Pennsylvania to file declarations before appearance. In the case of summons the act requires that it should be filed days before the return day. It has never yet been determined, that the filing a declaration is a waiver of bail: We have no such rule; and, unless

Page 2 U.S. 141, 142

some substantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the practice contended for, the Court will not alter the usual course.

Rule discharged.

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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.