Hearn v. Hearn

Superior Court of Delaware

Hearn v. Hearn

1 Del. 498

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1835·Published

Opinion

The Court

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.

Layton, for plff. E. D. Cullen, for deft.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

The Court

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.

Layton, for plff. E. D. Cullen, for deft.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Hearn v. Hearn, 1 Del. 498 (Del. Ct. App. 1835).

Pincite

1 Del. 498 (Hearn v. Hearn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.