Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Britt and another against Van Norden.
    
    Where the attorney of the defendant gave notice of special bail before judgment, but the bail was not actually filed, it was ordered to be filed nunc pro• tunc, and that the attorney of the defendant pay costs.
    In November last, the defendant’s attorney gave notice to the plaintiff’s attorney, that special bail was filed in this cause: and the plaintiffs, relying upon the information, and not intending to object to the bail, proceeded to enter up judgment in January term last; but afterwards discovered that special bail was not filed until the 24th of January.
    Hopkins, for the plaintiffs,
    now moved that the bail-piece filed in January, be considered as filed on the first day of November preceding.
    
      Woods, contra.
    
      
       S. C., C. C. 96.
    
   Per Curiam.

This irregularity in practice is not to be countenanced. Let the plaintiff take his rule, with costs to be paid by the attorney for the defendant.

Rule granted. 
      
      
        а) tira. Prac. 2d edit. 182.