Barry v. Randolph
| Decision Date | 22 December 1810 |
| Citation | 3 Binn. 277 |
| Parties | BARRY v. RANDOLPH. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
IN ERROR.
Every court of record has an inherent power to make rules for the transaction of its business, not contradictory to the law of the land. Under this power the Common Pleas have a right to make a rule, that the party appealing from the award of arbitrators shall give his opponent notice of the time and place of entering the appeal, and the name of his surety although the act of assembly does not require it.
UPON a writ of error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, the case was thus: An award was made by arbitrators in favour of Randolph the plaintiff below, from which the defendant appealed, and entered into the recognisance required by law; but no notice of the time and place of entering the appeal, and of the name of the surety having been given to the plaintiff, in conformity with the following rule, the Common Pleas struck off the appeal. " This rule was rescinded on the 16th June 1810, after the appeal of the plaintiff in error had been struck off.
Phillips, for the plaintiff in error, contended that the rule was invalid, because the 11th section of the arbitration law 9 St. Laws 149., gives an appeal to the dissatisfied party " under the rules, regulations, and restrictions" therein set forth; but there is no requisition of notice to the opposite party or his attorney. The Common Pleas seem to have been of the same opinion, by rescinding the rule.
Shoemaker contra. The Common Pleas found it impossible to do justice to either party without the rule. The appellee was liable to imposition by getting merely sham bail upon the appeal; and the appellant might lose his appeal altogether, if his antagonist might file exceptions after the time of the appeal had elapsed. They had power to make the rule, under their general authority to institute all such regulations, not contrary to law, as they think necessary or expedient to facilitate business.
TILGHMAN C. J.
The only question in this case, is, whether the court of Common Pleas had power to make the rule, obliging the appellant to give notice of the time and place of entering the appeal and of the names of the sureties. Every court of record has an inherent power to make rules for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Stultz
...Pennsylvania case law recognized the power of a court to create rules even absent an express constitutional provision. Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn. 277, 278 (Pa.1810) (Chief Justice Tilghman writing, “Every court of record has an inherent power to make rules for the transaction of its busines......
-
Egery v. Power
...Dig. art. 1578; Pas. Dig. note 182, page 57; Evans v. Pigg, 28 Tex. 586;11 Tex. 776;Boni Judicis est Amplaire--Broom, Leg. Max.; Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn. 277;Vanatta v. Anderson, 3 Binn. 417, S. P.;10 Yerg. 310; 9 Geo. 247; 12 Ill. 203;20 Ohio, 345; 15 Ala. 800; 18 Ala. 619.No brief for d......
-
McGreevy v. Kulp
...question was any greater stretch of that general power than was involved in many of the rules held valid in the following cases: Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn. 277; v. Anderson, 3 Binn. 417; Kuhn v. Kisterbock, 6 Wh. 166; Frost v. Roatch, 6 Wh. 359; Odenheimer v. Stokes, 5 W. & S. 175; Mylin's ......
-
Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Johnstown Tel. Co.
...585; Traction Co. v. R. R. Co., 180 Pa. 432. The rule must not controverse the law of the land: DuBois v. Turner, 4 Yeates, 361; Barry v. Randolph, 3 Binn. 277; Vanatta Anderson, 3 Binn. 417; Boas v. Nagle, 3 S. & R. 250; Snyder v. Bauchman, 8 S. & R. 336. " A court cannot pass a rule which......