Barrell v. Simonton

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Barrell v. Simonton

2 F. Cas. 907, 2 Cranch 657, 2 D.C. 657

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 907 (Barrell v. Simonton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrell v. Simonton, 2 F. Cas. 907, 2 Cranch 657, 2 D.C. 657 (circtddc 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

took time, and upon full consideration of the following authorities, was of opinion, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, doubling,) that the affidavit to hold to bail was insufficient, because it did not state that the suit in Baltimore had terminated in favor of the present plaintiff. Waterer v. Freeman, Hob. (17 Jac.) 267; Skinner v. Gunton, 1 Saund. 228; Stennel v. Hogg, Id. 226, note 1, by Serg. Williams; Martin v. Lincoln, Esp. N. P. 527; Farrel v. Nunn, Bull. N. P. 13; Parker v. Langly, 10 Mod. 145, 209; Brownl. Rediv. 61; Reg. Brev. 134, a; Shotbolt’s Case, Godb. 70; Fisher v. Bristow, J. Doug. 215; Morgan v. Hughes, 2 Term R. 225; Lewis v. Farrel, 1 Strange, 114; Lil. Ent. 15, 23, 35; Sutton v. Johnstone, 1 Term R. 497, 498.

The defendant was permitted to appear without special bail. At a subsequent term, he filed a general demurrer to the declaration; and at May term, 1827, the suit was struck off by order of the plaintiff.

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

THE COURT

took time, and upon full consideration of the following authorities, was of opinion, (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, doubling,) that the affidavit to hold to bail was insufficient, because it did not state that the suit in Baltimore had terminated in favor of the present plaintiff. Waterer v. Freeman, Hob. (17 Jac.) 267; Skinner v. Gunton, 1 Saund. 228; Stennel v. Hogg, Id. 226, note 1, by Serg. Williams; Martin v. Lincoln, Esp. N. P. 527; Farrel v. Nunn, Bull. N. P. 13; Parker v. Langly, 10 Mod. 145, 209; Brownl. Rediv. 61; Reg. Brev. 134, a; Shotbolt’s Case, Godb. 70; Fisher v. Bristow, J. Doug. 215; Morgan v. Hughes, 2 Term R. 225; Lewis v. Farrel, 1 Strange, 114; Lil. Ent. 15, 23, 35; Sutton v. Johnstone, 1 Term R. 497, 498.

The defendant was permitted to appear without special bail. At a subsequent term, he filed a general demurrer to the declaration; and at May term, 1827, the suit was struck off by order of the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 907, 2 Cranch 657, 2 D.C. 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrell-v-simonton-circtddc-1826.