Layton and Wife v. Houston

Superior Court of Delaware

Layton and Wife v. Houston

10 Del. 574

DecidedJuly 5, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Del. 574 (Layton and Wife v. Houston) 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

Layton and Wife v. Houston, 10 Del. 574 (Del. Ct. App. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS was an action of debt on a recognizance of bail in an action of trespass q. c. f. against John Breerly, and recovery of judgment therein by the plaintiffs for fifty dollars damages and costs, and which had not been paid, tried before Houston and Wales, Judges, Comegys, C. J., absent. The record of the same was offered and read in evidence by the counsel for the plaintiffs, from which it appeared that at the return term of the original writ therein the defendant appeared, and the said Edward W. Houston became special bail for him in the action. It also showed the recovery of the judgment in it as alleged, and that a writ of fieri facias had been issued upon it and returned nulla bona and nonsunt inventi. The pleas were nul tiel record, noca. sa. issued and returned non est inventus before the commencement of this action, and release and issues thereon. The counsel for the plaintiffs upon the production of the evidence above mentioned rested his case.

Cullen, for the defendant, submitted a motion for a nonsuit on the ground of the fact and the complete defense alleged in the *Page 575 second plea, which was denied by the plaintiffs, but was proved by the record produced in evidence on their behalf. No writ o ca.sa. had been issued on the judgment, as appeared from if with a return of non est inventus thereon as to the defendant in it, to fix the liability of the bail which the law imperatively requires. 2 Tidd. 1098; 3 Johns. 514; 16Johns. 117; Rev. Code, sec. 11, p. 637.

Layton, for the plaintiffs: Our statute in relation to the writ had dispensed with the necessity of a ca. sa. in such a case. 1 Tidd. 304, 306.

The Court granted the motion for a nonsuit.

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

THIS was an action of debt on a recognizance of bail in an action of trespass q. c. f. against John Breerly, and recovery of judgment therein by the plaintiffs for fifty dollars damages and costs, and which had not been paid, tried before Houston and Wales, Judges, Comegys, C. J., absent. The record of the same was offered and read in evidence by the counsel for the plaintiffs, from which it appeared that at the return term of the original writ therein the defendant appeared, and the said Edward W. Houston became special bail for him in the action. It also showed the recovery of the judgment in it as alleged, and that a writ of fieri facias had been issued upon it and returned nulla bona and nonsunt inventi. The pleas were nul tiel record, noca. sa. issued and returned non est inventus before the commencement of this action, and release and issues thereon. The counsel for the plaintiffs upon the production of the evidence above mentioned rested his case.

Cullen, for the defendant, submitted a motion for a nonsuit on the ground of the fact and the complete defense alleged in the *Page 575 second plea, which was denied by the plaintiffs, but was proved by the record produced in evidence on their behalf. No writ o ca.sa. had been issued on the judgment, as appeared from if with a return of non est inventus thereon as to the defendant in it, to fix the liability of the bail which the law imperatively requires. 2 Tidd. 1098; 3 Johns. 514; 16Johns. 117; Rev. Code, sec. 11, p. 637.

Layton, for the plaintiffs: Our statute in relation to the writ had dispensed with the necessity of a ca. sa. in such a case. 1 Tidd. 304, 306.

The Court granted the motion for a nonsuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Del. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layton-and-wife-v-houston-delsuperct-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack