Harrison v. Lane
This text of 4 Munf. 238 (Harrison v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
the following was delivered by Judge Roane as the court’s opinion.
This is a motion against the appellant as one of the securities of James Wigginton, a deputy'to the appellee, who was late sheriff of the county of Fairfax, to recover against him a fine assessed against the latter for the default of the said deputy.
The motion is made, under the act of December 11th, 1793,
The above mentioned act having only given a joint motion against the deputy and his sureties, and not a separate motion against one or more of those sureties, and this being a summary proceeding contrary to the course of the common law, and as to which the directions of the act ought con[241]*241seqiiently to be strictly pursued, it is not necessary for the court to do more than to say, that the act does not authorize a separate proceeding. At the same time, it may readily be conceived to be highly proper that the deputy himself should be included in the motion, who is conusant of the transactions on which the ground of action arose, and is most competent to defend it. There might possibly have been collusion on the part of the high sheriff in suffering the former recovery, which the deputy himself would be best able to shew. At any rate, this separate motion is not authorized by the act; and the judgment is therefore to be reversed, and entered for the appellant.
Rev. Code, 1st vol. p. 314.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Munf. 238, 18 Va. 238, 1814 Va. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-lane-va-1814.