Lee v. Welch

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

Lee v. Welch

15 F. Cas. 238, 1 Cranch 477

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1807

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F. Cas. 238 (Lee v. Welch) 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

Lee v. Welch, 15 F. Cas. 238, 1 Cranch 477 (circtddc 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

This was an action of debt on a bond in the penalty of six thousand dollars. There was an indorsement, the precise meaning of which could not well be understood.

F. S. Key objected, that there ought to have been an affidavit to show the precise amount claimed by the plaintiff, and moved for leave to appear for the defendant without special bail.

But THE COURT (nem. con) upon the authority of Smith v. Watson [Case No. 13,124], June, 1806, in this court, overruled the objection.

Mr. Key then moved the court to limit the amount of bail to a certain sum, and said he could produce an affidavit that the whole was not due.

But THE COURT refused, and also refused to receive persons resident in Baltimore as bail. The defendant was committed.

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

This was an action of debt on a bond in the penalty of six thousand dollars. There was an indorsement, the precise meaning of which could not well be understood.

F. S. Key objected, that there ought to have been an affidavit to show the precise amount claimed by the plaintiff, and moved for leave to appear for the defendant without special bail.

But THE COURT (nem. con) upon the authority of Smith v. Watson [Case No. 13,124], June, 1806, in this court, overruled the objection.

Mr. Key then moved the court to limit the amount of bail to a certain sum, and said he could produce an affidavit that the whole was not due.

But THE COURT refused, and also refused to receive persons resident in Baltimore as bail. The defendant was committed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. Cas. 238, 1 Cranch 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-welch-circtddc-1807.