Case ID: miles_2/html/0102-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WALKER v. FOLSOM et al.
    June 1, 1837.
    
      Rule on the sheriff to show cause why he should not furnish a boMpiece.
    
    Under the act of June 13, 1836, relating to the commencement of actions, it is the duty of the prolhonotary, and not of the sheriff, to furnish a bailpiece to the bail when demanded.
    THIS was capias in debt 300 dollars; bail 600 dollars, ret. 1st Monday, March 1839 : ex’t. 25th Feb. Eo. die defendant Folsom arrested, and O. M. Lawrnls became his bail, by entering into a bail bond of that date to the sheriff, in the usual form.
    
      On the return day, the sheriff returned as to Folsom, “ C. 0. & B. B.,” and at the same time returned the bond, together with the capias ad respondendum, to the office of the prothonotary of this court, who filed the same.
    The bail was not excepted to.
    Upon application to the sheriff, in April, 1839, he declined giving to the bail a bailpiece, and J. M. Read obtained this rule on the sheriff to show cause why he should not furnish the bailpiece.
    
      J. M. Read, for the rule,
    cited the act of 13th June, 1836, (Purd. Dig. 41,) 1 Dunl. P. 161; 2 Strange 870; 4 W. C. C. R. 233.
    
      Tyson, contra.
   The Court

said it was the duty of the prothonotary to give the bailpiece. The act of June 13, 1836, makes no alteration in the previous practice.

Rule discharged.