Case Name: Eldridge against Robinson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1818-12-24
Citations: 4 Serg. & Rawle 548
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eldridge against Robinson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 4
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Eldridge against Robinson.
Thursday, December 24.
Foreign Attachment.
On a rule lo action this °* Court will not receivt suppiementary affidavits.
A RULE having been obtained on a former day to shew cause why the attachment should not be dissolved, the plaintiff made an affidavit which was not deemed sufficient, and now Broom., on hts behalf, asked leave to exhibit a supplementary affidavit, and mentioned several cases in which they had been received, particularly the case of Fisher v. Consequa, in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Pennsylvania district.
Binney, contra,
answered, that in cases of this kind, an appeal was made to the conscience of the plaintiff, who swears to all that he can in conscience swear to. Courts, therefore, refuse to hold to bail, unless there is a positive affidavit of a real subsisting debt. It must be such an affidavit as would, if false, subject the party who swears, to an indictment for perjury. If supplementary affidavits were permitted, an unprincipled man would never suffer a defendant to escape. He would learn how far it was necessary for him to go and swear to the mark. The reason why they are rejected is, that after the point has been mooted, they are not a fair test of the conscience of the party. Where there is merely an informal authentication, or where there are literal errors, these defects may be amended ; but a want of substance cannot be cured. In England they are received in the Common Pleas, but not in the King’s Bench.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
The plaintiff in this cause having made an affidavit which was insufficient, now offers a supplemental affidavit. That is against the practice of this Court, and therefore cannot be admitted. In this respect, we follow the practice of the Court of King's Bench, because we think it better adapted to produce certainty, and avoid the temptation to perjury, than the practice of the Common Pleas, by which supplemental affidavits are admitted. There are in stances in which such affidavits have been received, and the case of Sims v. Hampton is one of them. But in that case there was no objection on the part of the defendant; and if the other cases were investigated, it is presumed, that they would be found to have been received on the same principle. There are special reasons why this Court should not relax its practice. All the Judges are frequently absent from the city, engaged in Courts held at a great distance. Advantage has often been taken of this circumstance, to hold defendants to excessive bail. It is but reasonable, therefore, that the plaintiff, when cited, should at once make out a sufficient cause. The circumstance of this case being a foreign attachment, in which the goods are detained, without touching the body, we do not think a sufficient cause for a difference of practice. A detention of goods may not be so grievous, as imprisonment of the body, but there are cases in which it may do great injury, and even be ruinous to the defendant. It is the opinion of the Court, therefore, that the supplemental affidavit should not be received.
Attachment dissolved.