Davis v. Denning, Duhadaway, and Denning

Superior Court of Delaware

Davis v. Denning, Duhadaway, and Denning

1 Del. 225

DecidedJuly 5, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. 225 (Davis v. Denning, Duhadaway, and Denning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Denning, Duhadaway, and Denning, 1 Del. 225 (Del. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

—In this case Duhadaway and J. M. Denning were the only parties before the justice. They submitted the matters in controversy to referrees, who decided that they were not indebted to the plff., and on this part of their award the justice properly gave judgment against Davis for-costs. They further reported that John Denning was indebted to the plff. in the sum of $35 29. They might with equal propriety have reported that any other person not a party to the record was so indebted. John Denning was not before them and they had no authority to pass upon his rights. The award therefore against John Denning being against a person not a party to the record is a nullity and void; the justice could not have given any judgment against him upon that award; and therefore the judgment against Davis for costs was a proper judgment and the proceedings below must be affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per curiam.

—In this case Duhadaway and J. M. Denning were the only parties before the justice. They submitted the matters in controversy to referrees, who decided that they were not indebted to the plff., and on this part of their award the justice properly gave judgment against Davis for-costs. They further reported that John Denning was indebted to the plff. in the sum of $35 29. They might with equal propriety have reported that any other person not a party to the record was so indebted. John Denning was not before them and they had no authority to pass upon his rights. The award therefore against John Denning being against a person not a party to the record is a nullity and void; the justice could not have given any judgment against him upon that award; and therefore the judgment against Davis for costs was a proper judgment and the proceedings below must be affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-denning-duhadaway-and-denning-delsuperct-1833.