Reinouldt v. Aublai

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Reinouldt v. Aublai

4 Binn. 378, 1812 Pa. LEXIS 7

DecidedJanuary 4, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Binn. 378 (Reinouldt v. Aublai) 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.

Bluebook

Reinouldt v. Aublai, 4 Binn. 378, 1812 Pa. LEXIS 7 (Pa. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The notice was not sufficient. Where a point is reserved at the trial, the notice is dispensed with. But here was no point reserved. When the Chief Justice in his charge mentioned that if the plaintiff’s counsel should think proper to move for a new trial, the matter might be considered in banc, it did not dispense with the obligation to give notice according to the rule.

Motion rejected.

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

Per Curiam.

The notice was not sufficient. Where a point is reserved at the trial, the notice is dispensed with. But here was no point reserved. When the Chief Justice in his charge mentioned that if the plaintiff’s counsel should think proper to move for a new trial, the matter might be considered in banc, it did not dispense with the obligation to give notice according to the rule.

Motion rejected.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Binn. 378, 1812 Pa. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinouldt-v-aublai-pa-1812.