Case Name: STONE VS. EISMAN AND WIFE
Court: Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1879-05-09
Citations: 1 Law Times (N.S.) 123
Docket Number: 
Parties: STONE VS. EISMAN AND WIFE
Judges: 
Reporter: Law Times (New Series)
Volume: 1
Pages: 123–124

Head Matter:
COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA CO.
STONE VS. EISMAN AND WIFE
B.UT.E TO ENTER'13 A IT, FOR APPEAR FROM .AWARD OF AR-
BITRATORS.
Coiais will give their rules a liberal construction and administer them, so as to secure suitors in their constitutional rights.
This was a rule to show cause why bail should not Oe entered for an appeal from an award of arbitrators. From the record and the depositions filed in ihe case it appeared that the plaintiff brought a.n action of ejectment against the defendants for a lot of land sold upon contract to Elizabeth Eisman, one of the defendants. The case was ruled out of Court under the Compulsory Arbitration Act and tried before a board of arbitrators, who found for i he plaint iff and against the defendants for the land described in the writ conditioned, however, upon the payment cf a certain sum by the defendants to the plaintiff. This award was filed in the Brothonotary’s office on the 2;>th of February, 1879. On the 12th of March the defendants appealed from this award.' -On the 17th of March the plaintiff tiled exceptions to the sufficiency of the bail for appeal and served a notice upon the defendants to aj pear and justify or put in new bail within ten days , according to rule of Court. On the 27th of March, the defendants failing to appear, the bail was stricken off.
Elizabeth Eisman. ilie defendant in interest, was arrested on the 16th of March and was confined in the counly prison lor thirty days from that date. At the first court after her release she applied for and' obtained this rule.
AmeumaNÍot Rule. The bail in this case was stricken off under a rule of Court. Rules of Court are to be administered in subordination to the rights and equities of suitors.
Magill’s Appeal, 9 P. E. Smith, 480.
Sterling vs. Ritchey, 17 S. & R., 263.
The bail having been excepted to twenty days after the award was filed the defendants are .entitled to enter new bail.
Davis vs. Black, 12 S. & R., 827.
Campbell Contra.
A rule of Court is a law of the . Court. Under this' law the bail iu this case was properly stricken oft. It is now too late under the statute to enter new bail, being more than twenty days since the filing of the award.
There are two defendants in this case, only one of whom was prevented from attending to the perfecting of bail.
The defendant confined in jail should have attended to perfecting bail by her agent or counsel.
Rule absolute. Bail to be entered within one week.

Opinion:
Oral opinion by
Hand, J.