Case ID: morris_1/html/0420-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mason, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Stratton, plaintiff in error, vs. Samuel Shintaffer, defendant in error.
    
      Error to Cedar.
    
    The writ and recognizance, on a complaint in bastardy, should be in the nmae of tho United States on the complaint of the female.
    
      This was an action of bastardy, brought in the name of Maty Stratton against Samuel Shintaffer, and the proceedings were quashed in the court below, on the following motion.
    “ 1. That the suit is brought in the name of Mary Stratton, whereas the same should be in the name of the United States.
    2. Tho warrant is informal and illegal, and not authorized by law.
    3. The recognizance is not sealed by the person who signed the same, and the penalty thereof is made payable to Mary Stratton, whereas it should be made payable to the United States, &c.”
    To reverse this judgment the plaintiff has sued out a writ of error from this court.
    J. P. & E. Cook, for plaintiff in error.
    Preston & Hastings, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this caso is, relative to the proper parties to a prosecution under the bastardy act. The current of opinion in the States, under similar statutes, seems to be in accordance with the decision below, and though there seems to be no great degree of principle involved in the matter, we think the better title for a suit of this kind is, The United States on the complaint of A B vs. C D. The case from Wrights Ohio Reports which is principally relied upon, by the counsel for th'e plaintiff in error, would even seem to sanction such a mode of entitling the suit.

Judgment affirmed.