Opinion
11-20-1812
Dix v. Evans
Wickham, for the plaintiff in error. No counsel appeared on the other side.
Upon a writ of supersedeas to a judgment by default on a forthcoming bond, which was taken for the delivery, at the time and place of sale, of certain slaves and other property, tendered by the defendant to the sheriff, in discharge of his body, on a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. The errors assigned were, 1st. That a material variance existed between the property described in the condition of the bond, and that mentioned in the sheriff's return of the execution; and, 2dly. That the bond was illegally taken, the date thereof being posterior to the return-day of the execution. The ca. sa. and return were spread on the record; (as in Glascock's administratrix v. Dawson, 1 Munf. 609; ) from which, when compared with the bond, it appeared that a negro man, by the name of Joe, mentioned in the condition of the bond as one of the slaves tendered by the defendant, and received by the sheriff, was omitted in the sheriff's return; that the ca. sa. (being returnable the 1st of January, 1809) was executed December 29th, 1808; that the property, in discharge of the defendant's body, was tendered and received " at the time of levying the said writ; " that the time appointed for the sale was March 31st, 1809; and that the forthcoming bond was dated March 4th, 1809.
See Rev. Code, vol. 1, p. 301.
Affirmed judgment.
Wickham, for the plaintiff in error.
No counsel appeared on the other side.
OPINION
February 2d, 1813, the Court affirmed the judgment.