¶1We know of no such practice in Pennsylvania, nor do we see any good reason for it, even in England. We individually know, that in all courts wherein we have prac-tised, the usage has been different from that contended for. Besides, if the English practice ought to be extended, why stop at the mere filing of the declaration? Why should not the copy be delivered to the defendant or his attorney? The practice of every court is the law of that court, and we must be governed by our own customs and usages, as the courts at Westminster are governed by theirs. We are clearly of opinion, that the unconditional filing of the declaration in the present instance is no waiver of bail.
1 Yeates 103
Caton v. M'Carty
Decided January 15, 1792
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1792-01-15
This cause had been removed from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county by habeas corpus. Previous to the entry of bail, the plaintiff’s attorney had filed his declaration, without marking the same de bene esse, and a question arose before the court whether this was a waiver of bail. contended that by the practice in England, such unconditional declaration would * amount to a waiver, and cited Highmore on Bail, 15, [-*104. 57. Lib. Prac. Reg. 86.
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1786
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1792-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →