Waples v. Derrickson

Superior Court of Delaware

Waples v. Derrickson

1 Del. 134

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1833·Published

Opinion

The plff’s. counsel referred to our act of assembly requiring the deft, in an attachment to put in bail to answer any action that the plff. might bring against him; and insisted that this act controlled the English rule, if such a rule existed in the English practice. On the other side it was said that the attachment was merely a substitute for personal service with process, and the rights of bail the same as at common law.

The court directed the exoneretur to be entered.

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

The plff’s. counsel referred to our act of assembly requiring the deft, in an attachment to put in bail to answer any action that the plff. might bring against him; and insisted that this act controlled the English rule, if such a rule existed in the English practice. On the other side it was said that the attachment was merely a substitute for personal service with process, and the rights of bail the same as at common law.

The court directed the exoneretur to be entered.

Waples v. Derrickson, 1 Del. 134 (Del. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

1 Del. 134 (Waples v. Derrickson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.