Skip to content


Caton Vs. Mccarty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number2 U.S. 141
AppellantCaton
RespondentMccarty
Excerpt:
.....been determined, that the filing a declaration is a waiver of bail: we have no such rule; and, unless page 2 u.s. 141, 142 some substantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the practice contended for, the court will not alter the usual course. rule discharged.
Judgment:
CATON v. MCCARTY - 2 U.S. 141 (1792)
U.S. Supreme Court CATON v. MCCARTY, 2 U.S. 141 (1792)

2 U.S. 141 (Dall.)

Caton, Assignee of the Sheriff
v.
M'Carty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January Term, 1792

Levy had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the proceedings on the bail-bond should not be staid, 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.

Heatly, in reply, urged that 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.

By the Court: 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

Page 2 U.S. 141, 142

some substantial benefit is to be derived from adopting the practice contended for, the Court will not alter the usual course.

Rule discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //