Hayes v. Shields

2 Yeates 222
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1797·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

Per cur.

It has frequently been resolved, that courts in cases of this nature, will not nicely scan the time of the return of parties, witnesses, &c. 2 Stra. 986, 987, 990, 1094. 1 Barnes. 278. 2 Bl. Sep. 1113. Gilb. Cas. C. R. 308. It is fair to presume, that the adjustment of the expenses of the action just tried, would detain him at least one day. His exemption from process is the privilege of the court. 2 Bl. Rep. 1193. Annal. 41. Dall. 357. The distinction between writs of summons and capais, is not solid, as it respects the present question, and was overruled in the case of the member of convention impleaded in Philadelphia. (Bolton v. Martin.) Dall. 296. The p.arty’s attention to his own business in the suit depending, is distracted by other objects, and he is subjected to the inconvenience of attending an action at a considerable distance from his own place of abode, contrary to the wise indulgence of the law. Vide Hutt. 59. 2 Stra. 1094.

The defendant must therefore be discharged from this action.

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

Hayes v. Shields, 2 Yeates 222 (Pa. 1797).

2 Yeates 222 (Hayes v. Shields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Klae Construction Inc. v. J&J Buildings Co.
18 Pa. D. & C.4th 140 (Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, 1993)
Frank v. Peckich
391 A.2d 624 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Gekoski v. Starer
302 A.2d 398 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Wangler v. Harvey
196 A.2d 513 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1963)
Suleski v. Brown
9 Pa. D. & C.2d 694 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1956)
Roberts v. Pearson
5 Pa. D. & C.2d 781 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1954)
Cowperthwait v. Lamb
95 A.2d 510 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)
Crusco v. Strunk Steel Co.
74 A.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Luch v. Loughry
21 Pa. D. & C. 140 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
Long v. Hawken
79 A. 190 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1911)
Hale v. Wharton
73 F. 739 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1896)
Christian v. Williams
20 S.W. 96 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Andrews v. Lembeck
46 Ohio St. (N.S.) 38 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1888)
Baldwin v. Emerson
15 A. 83 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1888)
Greer v. Youngs
17 Ill. App. 106 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1885)
Larned v. Griffin
12 F. 590 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1882)
Atchison v. Morris
11 F. 582 (N.D. Illinois, 1882)
Matthews v. . Tufts
87 N.Y. 568 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Parker v. Hotchkiss
18 F. Cas. 1137 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1849)
Lyell v. Goodwin
15 F. Cas. 1126 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan, 1845)