Case ID: binn_4/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Philadelphia,
    Saturday, Dec. 28, 1811.]
    *Priestman assignee Vice-Com. against Keyser and another.
    Proceedings in the bail bond suit staid at the third term of the original action, upon paying costs, entering special bail, and giving the plaintiff a judgment in the original.
    On the first day of this term, Biddle for the defendants obtained a rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why the proceedings in this suit, which was debt upon a bail bond, should not be discharged, and special bail entered in the original action.
    The original was brought to December term 1810; and the bail bond suit, to the present term. By the course of the Court, if bail had been regularly entered, the cause might have been set down for trial at the Nisi Prius after March term, and a judgment obtained at this term.
    
      S. Levy opposed the rule.
   The Court

directed the rule to be made absolute, upon the payment of costs in this suit, entering special bail, and giving the plaintiff a judgment in the original suit, The plaintiff by these terms has every advantage that he could have had by the regular entry of special bail.

[Cited in 2 S. & R. 285, 286 ; 5 id. 51.] 
      
       By the entry on the docket, the judgment does not appear to be one of the terms imposed; but it is otherwise upon the notes of the Chief Justice, and seems to be an essential part of the Court’s order.