¶1On examining the rule of court we find it expressed in terms too clear to admit of a doubt. If the writ of error had been taken out without offering bail, the plaintiff below would have suffered no delay of execution. But he has been delayed by the improper conduct of the defendant below, in entering insufficient bail. This improper conduct de*35serves some punishment, and that is the reason why the rule of court directs a nonpros t6 be entered in such cases. The opinion of the court is that the nonpros was properly entered.
3 Binn. 34
Taggart v. Cooper
Decided June 11, 1810
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1810-06-11
in ERROR. Y the minutes of the prothonotary in this case, which was a writ of error to thé Common Pleas of Northumberland, it appeared that on the 24th August 1808, the, recognisance of William Murray and Matthew Irwin was taken as bail in error, and notice given to the defendant in error.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1848
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1810-06-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →