Maus v. Sitesinger
This text of 2 Serg. & Rawle 421 (Maus v. Sitesinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Serg. & Rawle 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maus-v-sitesinger-pa-1816.