Childs v. Lenig

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Childs v. Lenig

5 F. Cas. 628, 1 Wall. Jr. 305, 1849 U.S. App. LEXIS 371

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Cas. 628 (Childs v. Lenig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Childs v. Lenig, 5 F. Cas. 628, 1 Wall. Jr. 305, 1849 U.S. App. LEXIS 371 (circtedpa 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIER, Circuit Justice.

This practice of putting in new pleas at the moment of trial, which we derive from the state courts, is a very vexatious one; and we are not disposed at all to encourage it here. The practice puts it in a defendant’s power to put off the suit almost as often as it is brought to' trial; for if the new pleas are artfully drawn (as' they may be on purpose), and suddenly sprung upon the counsel, he may naturally not wish to reply to them on the spot. Even in the state, while I presided in a judicial district there, though I could not, under the state law, prevent a party from putting in new pleas, I have generally done whatever I fairly could to discourage it beyond the strict requirements of the act. But in this court we are under no obligation to allow pleas to be thus put in. It is a privilege which the court may permit in its discretion.. In the state courts it is different. “The defendant," says the state act, act of March 21st, 1806, may “alter his plea or de-fence on or before the trial, * * * and if by such alteration or amendment the adverse party is taken by surprise, the trial shall be postponed until the next court.” The defendant must, in this court, shew something which addresses itself to our conscience; and even then we should probably continue the cause only on terms; as, for example, the payment of costs of the term.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIER, Circuit Justice.

This practice of putting in new pleas at the moment of trial, which we derive from the state courts, is a very vexatious one; and we are not disposed at all to encourage it here. The practice puts it in a defendant’s power to put off the suit almost as often as it is brought to' trial; for if the new pleas are artfully drawn (as' they may be on purpose), and suddenly sprung upon the counsel, he may naturally not wish to reply to them on the spot. Even in the state, while I presided in a judicial district there, though I could not, under the state law, prevent a party from putting in new pleas, I have generally done whatever I fairly could to discourage it beyond the strict requirements of the act. But in this court we are under no obligation to allow pleas to be thus put in. It is a privilege which the court may permit in its discretion.. In the state courts it is different. “The defendant," says the state act, act of March 21st, 1806, may “alter his plea or de-fence on or before the trial, * * * and if by such alteration or amendment the adverse party is taken by surprise, the trial shall be postponed until the next court.” The defendant must, in this court, shew something which addresses itself to our conscience; and even then we should probably continue the cause only on terms; as, for example, the payment of costs of the term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 628, 1 Wall. Jr. 305, 1849 U.S. App. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childs-v-lenig-circtedpa-1849.