Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
June Term, 1790.
Issue had been joined in this case, and the jury were at the bar ready to e qualified for trying it, when Serjeant moved for leave to retract his plea, and to enter judgment by non sum informatus. Rawle and Du Ponceau, for the plaintiff, opposed the motion: And Lewis, as amicus curiae, observing that the question was of general importance, hoped that the Court would take this opportunity of correcting, what he considered to be an unreasonable and unwarrantable practice. In support of his opinion he referred to Styl. Pr. Reg. 371. Jac. Law Dict. Tit. "Judgment." 2 Lill. Abr. 104. 5 Com. Dig. 186. 1 Brownl. 196.
By the Court:—It has been a practice for the plaintiff's attorney to accept a judgment in the mode proposed by the motion; but the point, for allowing the defendant's attorney, either as matter of right, or indulgence, to retract his plea, under such circumstances, has never been brought before the Court on argument. The inconveniency of the delay, where, in fact, there is no dispute, is, however, so palpable, that we cannot give a judicial countenance to the practice. Therefore, let the jury be called.
Last modified: March 24, 2016