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. 94
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
Pennington versus Scott. THISS cause being marked for trial, the defendant moved to postpone it, upon an affidavit, stating, " that he took out a subpoena three weeks ago, as as the time for holding the Court was known, and immediately employed one Rabb to serve it on witness, who lived at a distance; that he had, likewise lent, by the messenger, a letter to his Brother, requesting him to fee that the subpoena was served, and the witness expedited, in case of any accident to Rabb; that the witness was material without whole testimony, the defendant could not safely go to trial; that Rabb had not returned, nor had the defendant heard any thing of him since his departure; and that he thinks it probable that the attendance of the witness might be procured at the next Court." Yates insisted, that the defendant must produce a subpoena, and prove the service of it, in order to bring his case within the general rule. Rul d at Lancaster Nisi Priu
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.616 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:]
¶ 2But, by the Court: —It appears that as soon as the defendant had notice of the time of trial, he took, out a subpoena for a witness at a great distance in Washington County; but that neither the witness, nor the person employed to serve the subpoena, attends. This would not, in strictness, be a sufficient ground for putting off the cause: But it must be remembered, that the defendant, once before, at a considerable expence, brought the same witness to Court ; and when the cause was continued, without any fault imputable to him, he took the witness's deposition. Having thus, on a former, as well as on the present, occasion, pursued every preparatory step, which the law requires, to procure the attendance of the witness, we think it would be unreasonable to take advantage of any accident, that may have happened to, the messenger.
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 “Pennington v. Scott” in the last three months, from GDELT.