Hearn v. Hearn
This text of 1 Del. 498 (Hearn v. Hearn) 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.
Opinion
said the judge must have meant a bond with a collateral condition. His reasoning is otherwise against his own opinion; and that opinion clearly wrong if applied to a bond for the payment of money on demand. The distinction is between a collateral contract for a thing in fieri, and a precedent debt or duty. Where a *499 debt or duty is ascertained, no demand is necessary other than the bringing action which is a demand; but where the bond or contract is for a collateral thing a demand must be proved. Cro. Eliz. 548, 721; 1 Strange Rep. 88;2 Levinz 198; Cro. Jac. 242; 1 Saund. Rep. 32. n.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Del. 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hearn-v-hearn-delsuperct-1835.