Easton Bank v. Coryell

9 Watts & Serg. 153
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 15, 1844·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no apparent error in the charge; but the plaintiff was erroneously compelled to submit to a verdict, it was ruled in M’Lughan v. Bovard, for reasons not necessarily to be repeated, that a plaintiff is entitled to become nonsuit at any time before the jury have declared their readiness to give their verdict in answer to the prothonotary’s formal inquiry; but in this instance they were not ready, for they had not all been called and counted, in compliance with the ceremony that precedes the question of readiness. It is better to hold fast to the established criterion, whatever it may be, than introduce uncertainty by departing from it.

Judgment reversed.

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

Easton Bank v. Coryell, 9 Watts & Serg. 153 (Pa. 1844).

9 Watts & Serg. 153 (Easton Bank v. Coryell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raymond v. Costallas
70 A.2d 636 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
David Magen, Builder, Inc. v. Price
36 Pa. D. & C. 74 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
Donosa v. Ueltzen
97 Pa. Super. 556 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Crumley v. Lutz
36 A. 929 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1897)
Haviland v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe Deposit Co.
108 Pa. 236 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1885)