Ex parte Burford

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

Ex parte Burford

4 F. Cas. 724, 1 Cranch 456

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 F. Cas. 724 (Ex parte Burford) 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

Ex parte Burford, 4 F. Cas. 724, 1 Cranch 456 (circtddc 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

At law. Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The marshal returned that he held him under an attachment of contempt from the orphans’ court, dated January 9, 1797, returnable on the 13th-of the same month, for not appearing on the" 8th, to show cause why he should not give counter security to his sureties in the administration of Dyson’s estate. Upon which attachment the marshal had returned “executed and in custody,” but no order of the orphans’ court was made for the commitment, nor did it appear that the orphans’ court had made any further order respecting the business. The return further stated that he had been delivered up by his bail in a suit at law, and prayed in custody'; but the twenty days having expired and the defendant not charged in execution, THE COURT (nem. con.) were of opinion, that the attachment only authorized the marshal to hold him till he could bring him before the court on the 13th of January, and discharged the prisoner. See Virginia Law, 12th December, 1792, § 31.

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

At law. Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The marshal returned that he held him under an attachment of contempt from the orphans’ court, dated January 9, 1797, returnable on the 13th-of the same month, for not appearing on the" 8th, to show cause why he should not give counter security to his sureties in the administration of Dyson’s estate. Upon which attachment the marshal had returned “executed and in custody,” but no order of the orphans’ court was made for the commitment, nor did it appear that the orphans’ court had made any further order respecting the business. The return further stated that he had been delivered up by his bail in a suit at law, and prayed in custody'; but the twenty days having expired and the defendant not charged in execution, THE COURT (nem. con.) were of opinion, that the attachment only authorized the marshal to hold him till he could bring him before the court on the 13th of January, and discharged the prisoner. See Virginia Law, 12th December, 1792, § 31.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 F. Cas. 724, 1 Cranch 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-burford-circtddc-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack