Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 U.S. 141

Caton v. M'Carty

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 1, 1792

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1792

LEVY had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings on the bail-bond should not be said, on the ground that the plaintiff had accepted the defendant’s appearance, by filing a declaration in the original action. This he contended was a waiver of bail, and cited Highm. 153. 157. Lilly P. R. 86. Barnes. 257. Rich. Prac. 132.

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1819

1 state decisions

1 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1792

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1LEVY had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings on the bail-bond should not be said, on the ground that the plaintiff had accepted the defendant’s appearance, by filing a declaration in the original action. This he contended was a waiver of bail, and cited Highm. 153. 157. Lilly P. R. 86. Barnes. 257. Rich. Prac. 132. Poph. 145.

¶2Heatly, in reply, urged

¶3that the English practice had never been extended here ; and if it was, the declaration ought to have been delivered, before it could have had effect. 2 Term. Rep. 112. 1 Cromp. 94. Impey. Prac. 94. Rule. B. R 23. 24.

¶4By the Court:

¶5—It has been the practice in Pennsylvania to file declarations before appearance. In the case of summons the act requires that it should be filed days before the return day. It has never yet been determined, that the filing a declaration is a waiver of bail: We have no such rule ; and, unless *142some substantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the practice contended for, the Court will not alter the usual course.

¶6Rule discharged.

/2/us/141 · .json · Public domain