Copeland v. May

1 Tenn. 391

Opinion

Per curiam.

Here is no plea of non est factum which would have put in issue, whether there ever was such a bond as that declared on. The plea of the defendant admits the existence of such a bond, and only contests the assignment and its loss. The court are not prepared to say whether there is a substantial variance between the bond declared on, and the evidence. The jury will consider whether it is the same bond or whether it was assigned to the plaintiff.

Verdict for the plaintiff, and reasons filed in arrest of judgment. *

* Quere whether an action can be sustained on such a bond after being lost. It would seem that an action at common law can only be maintained in the case of a lost bond, where was for money only.