Wray v. Riley

District of Columbia

Wray v. Riley

1 D.C. 361

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided November 15, 1806·Published

Opinion

The action was debt on a judgment recovered in the State of Georgia.

Mr. E. J. Lee. The case of judgment is not provided for by the Virginia statute of 12lh December, 1792, p. 78, in which, bail may be required by an indorsement of an attorney. Ruffin v. Call, 2 Wash. 181; Bidleson v. Whytel, 3 Burr. 1548; Belither v. Gibbs, 4 Burr. 2117 ; Bowen v. Barnett, Sayer’s Rep. 160.

Exoneretur ordered.

(Duckett, J., absent.)

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

The action was debt on a judgment recovered in the State of Georgia.

Mr. E. J. Lee. The case of judgment is not provided for by the Virginia statute of 12lh December, 1792, p. 78, in which, bail may be required by an indorsement of an attorney. Ruffin v. Call, 2 Wash. 181; Bidleson v. Whytel, 3 Burr. 1548; Belither v. Gibbs, 4 Burr. 2117 ; Bowen v. Barnett, Sayer’s Rep. 160.

Exoneretur ordered.

(Duckett, J., absent.)

Wray v. Riley, 1 D.C. 361 (D.D.C. 1806).

Pincite

1 D.C. 361 (Wray v. Riley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related