
    Maus against Sitesinger.
    The defend'ant cannot, by entering a rule for arbitration before entering special bail, deprive the plaintiff of special bail.
    But if the plaintiff file his statement* appear by attorney, and plead his cause before the referees, he cannot afterwards assign for er- ' ror, that the defendant did not enter bail»
    Such conduct is an acceptance of appearance-without bail*
    In Error.
    ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county, in an action on the case, brought by Mans, in which bail was demanded in 600 dollars. The defendant entered a rule of arbitration, and an award took place in his favour. It was now assigned for error, that the defendant had not entered special bail before he entered his rule of arbitration.
    Hall, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited 6 Binn. 32.
    
      Chapman and Watts, contra.
   Tilghman C. J.

(delivered the opinion of the Court.) The eiror assigned is, that the defendant entered a rule for arbitration, without entering special bail. The defendant cannot by his own act, deprive the plaintiff of special bail. But it appears, that the plaintiff filed a statement of his cause of action, and appeared by his attorney, and pleaded his cause before the referees. After this, he cannot assign for error, fhat the defendant did not enter bail. By his conduct he has accepted an appearace without bail. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed?  