Case ID: pa_7/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Savings’ Institution v. Smith
    Corporations may have a writ of error without bail, but it is not a supersedeas.
    
      Jan. 15. The plaintiff in error was a corporation, and had not entered bail in error.
    
      S. V. Smith moved to quash on that ground. By the act of 1817, a corporation cannot appeal without giving absolute security, since bail for the appearance would be nugatory. Now appeals and writs of error are put on the same footing; Schuylkill v. Thomas, 18 Serg. & Rawle, 431.
    
      Clarkson, contra.
    The object of that act was to place corporations on the same footing with natural persons. This is all we ask. In neither case is the writ a supersedeas without bail. But it cannot be supposed the intention was to deprive corporations of the right of review unless bail absolute was given.
   Per Curiam.

The act of 1817 requires bail in error to be given by a corporation, not to found the writ, but to make it a supersedeas of execution. Corporations are put by it on the footing of natural persons, and any one may sue out a writ of error without bail if he choose to subject his property to execution.

Rule discharged.