Williams & Hodges v. Lyles

Supreme Court

Williams & Hodges v. Lyles

6 U.S. 10

DecidedFebruary 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 6 U.S. 10 (Williams & Hodges v. Lyles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams & Hodges v. Lyles, 6 U.S. 10 (1804).

Pincite

Opinion

The execution, upon which the bond was taken, was for “ $143.67, also $12.33, *and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per cwt.” The recital of the execution in the bond stated it to be for “ $143.67, also $20.33, and 355 pounds of tobacco, at the [2]*2rate of 13 shillings and four pence per hundred weight; and marshal’s fees and commissions, and all costs attending the execution of the said writ, $8.11, making in the whole the sum of $171.99.” This aggregate sum was correct, according to the execution, and not according to the recital, there having been a mistake in writing the word twenty for twelve. The court below, considering the recital as correct in substance, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants took a bill of exceptions, and brought their writ of error.

Youngs, for the defendant in error, cited Scott v. Hornsby, 1 Call 42; Bell v. Marr, Ibid. 47 ; Worsham v. Egleston, Ibid. 48 ; and Wilkinson v. McLochlin, Ibid. 49.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.

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

The execution, upon which the bond was taken, was for “ $143.67, also $12.33, *and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per cwt.” The recital of the execution in the bond stated it to be for “ $143.67, also $20.33, and 355 pounds of tobacco, at the [2]*2rate of 13 shillings and four pence per hundred weight; and marshal’s fees and commissions, and all costs attending the execution of the said writ, $8.11, making in the whole the sum of $171.99.” This aggregate sum was correct, according to the execution, and not according to the recital, there having been a mistake in writing the word twenty for twelve. The court below, considering the recital as correct in substance, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants took a bill of exceptions, and brought their writ of error.

Youngs, for the defendant in error, cited Scott v. Hornsby, 1 Call 42; Bell v. Marr, Ibid. 47 ; Worsham v. Egleston, Ibid. 48 ; and Wilkinson v. McLochlin, Ibid. 49.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 U.S. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-hodges-v-lyles-scotus-1804.