Armstrong v. Davis

1 N.J.L. 130
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 15, 1791·Published

Opinion

Per Our.

The rule must be made absolute. We know of no other rules of proceeding respecting the liability of [131]*131bail, than those which regulate it in the courts of Westminster. Without these, we are without any. I look upon the practice in this case to depend upon rules of court, and these rules on reason and justice. On the return of a ca. sa. non est inventus, the bail is bound. The extension of the time upon the sci. fa., I take to be founded on rules of practice.

The proceedings were stayed, and the bail exonerated.

Cited in Boggs v. Chichester, 1 Gr. 211; Kinny v. Muloch, 2 Harr. 335 ; Van Winkle v. Alling, 2 Harr. 448.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Armstrong v. Davis, 1 N.J.L. 130 (N.J. 1791).

1 N.J.L. 130 (Armstrong v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.