Case Name: Bachman's Case
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1809-07-13
Citations: 2 Binn. 72
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bachman’s Case.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Binney)
Volume: 2
Pages: 72–72

Head Matter:
Bachman’s Case.
1809. Sunbury, Thursday, July 13.
A deposition taken ex parte under a rule ot court, after the hour named in the rule, cannot be read in evide~ce\,
,. . Semble that it may, if the oppos.ite party had notice, and did not attend aíthe hour named.
N the hearing of this cause, which was an appeal by \_J' Bachman from the settlement of his accounts as an. . • executor, m the Orphan’s Court of Dauphin, Fisher offered jn evidence the deposition of a witness taken ex parte under r , , , ,. r , , a rule oi court. I he rule authorized the taking of the deposition at a certain place on a day named, between the hours r . / , oi ten and twelve; it was taken on the day and at the place pointed out, but at four o’clock i>. m. It was objected r 1 , . ,, _J io on account ox this irregularity; and the court refused to hear it.

Opinion:
Ye ates J.
mentioned a case of the Lessee of Davis v. Means, where the deposition was taken after the appointed time; but it was proved that the opposite party who had notice did not attend at the time, and the deposition was admitted in evidence.