Hines v. Dean

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

Hines v. Dean

12 F. Cas. 204, 4 Wash. C. C. 159

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 204 (Hines v. Dean) 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

Hines v. Dean, 12 F. Cas. 204, 4 Wash. C. C. 159 (circtedpa 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We should in this case follow the practice of the state courts under the above law, by granting the motion, if it did riot contradict a written rule of this court, which directs pleadings, rules and judgments, for want of appearance or filing pleas, to be transacted at rules, to be held monthly in the clerk’s office. In this case, the summons having been served, the plaintiff should have ruled the defendant to appear and plead, and if he had failed to do so, he might have entered up judgment, by default, nisi; which this court would, upon motion, make absolute or set aside, upon the defendant’s entering his appearance and pleading to issue. The courts of this state having so construed the above law, as to give judgment, although the declaration was not filed before the return day, this court would also dispense with it, if it be filed before the rule to appear and plead is entered. The motion is, therefore, overruled.

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

PER CURIAM.

We should in this case follow the practice of the state courts under the above law, by granting the motion, if it did riot contradict a written rule of this court, which directs pleadings, rules and judgments, for want of appearance or filing pleas, to be transacted at rules, to be held monthly in the clerk’s office. In this case, the summons having been served, the plaintiff should have ruled the defendant to appear and plead, and if he had failed to do so, he might have entered up judgment, by default, nisi; which this court would, upon motion, make absolute or set aside, upon the defendant’s entering his appearance and pleading to issue. The courts of this state having so construed the above law, as to give judgment, although the declaration was not filed before the return day, this court would also dispense with it, if it be filed before the rule to appear and plead is entered. The motion is, therefore, overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 204, 4 Wash. C. C. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-dean-circtedpa-1821.