Maus v. Sitesinger

2 Serg. & Rawle 421
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 25, 1816·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Tilghman C. J.

(delivered the opinion of the Court.) The eiror assigned is, that the defendant entered a rule for arbitration, without entering special bail. The defendant cannot by his own act, deprive the plaintiff of special bail. But it appears, that the plaintiff filed a statement of his cause of action, and appeared by his attorney, and pleaded his cause before the referees. After this, he cannot assign for error, fhat the defendant did not enter bail. By his conduct he has accepted an appearace without bail. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed?

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

Maus v. Sitesinger, 2 Serg. & Rawle 421 (Pa. 1816).

2 Serg. & Rawle 421 (Maus v. Sitesinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beidman v. Vanderslice
2 Rawle 334 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1830)