Thomas v. Clagett

General Court of Virginia

Thomas v. Clagett

2 Md. 172

CourtGeneral Court of Virginia

DecidedOctober 15, 1786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Md. 172 (Thomas v. Clagett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thomas v. Clagett, 2 Md. 172 (Va. Super. Ct. 1786).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

were of opinion, that the deposition could not be read in evidence to the Jury, because it did not appear, that proof of notice to the defendant was lodged with the clerk of the county, where the said deposition Vas taken, to be recorded, nor did it appear, that any notice- of taking the said deposition was recorded by the clerk of the county.

Stone, for plaintiff. Chase and Jenings, for defendant.

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, where she judgment was affirmed, at May term, 1788.

See the act of July, 1779, c. 8. entitled “ an act establishing a mode to perpetuate testimony.”

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

The Court

were of opinion, that the deposition could not be read in evidence to the Jury, because it did not appear, that proof of notice to the defendant was lodged with the clerk of the county, where the said deposition Vas taken, to be recorded, nor did it appear, that any notice- of taking the said deposition was recorded by the clerk of the county.

Stone, for plaintiff. Chase and Jenings, for defendant.

The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, where she judgment was affirmed, at May term, 1788.

See the act of July, 1779, c. 8. entitled “ an act establishing a mode to perpetuate testimony.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Md. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-clagett-vagensess-1786.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack