How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 January 1786, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 January 1786
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 2 U.S. 95
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Decided
- 1786-01-01
Headnote
Cecil’s Lessee versus Lebenstone. THE defendant was tenant for years of the premises, for which the ejectment was brought, and one Courtney claimed the fee. The cause was not included in the general distringas which had issued for trials, at this Court of Nisi Prius; but a special distringas afterwards came up for it. Neither the defendant, nor Courtney, however, had received express or implied notice of trial, from the sheriff, or any other person: And, therefore, a motion to bring it on was refused. Ruled at Nisi Prius.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.639 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
¶ 1[majority — By the Court :]
¶ 2By the Court : —The defendant has not received such notice of trial, as made it reasonable for him to prepare. No laches can be imputed to him; for, he is not obliged to attend at every Court, whether his cause is marked for trial, or not. In England the proof of actual notice is required: But, with us, as the Gentleman of the law are not so numerous, as they live dispersed, and as there are no regular posts, the rigor of that rule is not imposed. Still, however, a reasonable notice of trial must be given to the party, not merely to his attorney; and, after all, the rules for bringing on causes must be influenced by legal discretion, applicable to the peculiar circumstances of every case.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Cecil's Lessee v. Lebenstone” in the last three months, from GDELT.