Case ID: va_17/html/0772-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Quarles v. Buford.
    Saturday, Dec. 19, 1812.
    Office Judgment — Record—Bail Bond. — A clerk’s entering- and confirming a judgment, at rules, against a defendant, and another person, as security for his appearance,” is not sufficient to make such person liable as appearance hail; hut a copy of the hail bond should be inserted in the transcript of the record; for want of which, the judgment should he reversed.
    
      
      Office Judgment — Record—Bail Bond. — The judgment was by default for want of appearance, and consequent^- the writ and bail bond are parts of the record. Ming v. Gwalkin, 6 Rand. 551, citing the principal case.
    
   In an action of debt, on a bond, in behalf of John Buford, assignee of John H. Pate & Co., against William *Hawes, a judgment was entered, and confirmed, in the clerk’s office of Bedford county, against the defendant, “and William Quarles, the security for his appearance,” who, thereupon, appealed to the ■district Court, and, the judgment being there affirmed, again appealed to this Court. The writ was not inserted in the transcript of the record; and it did not appear Whether any bail bond was taken.

Tuesday, December 22, the president pronounced the Court’s opinion, that both judgments be reversed, “because it does not appear, by the record, that the appellant was bail for the defendant, Hawes; there being no bail bond, () nor a copy thereof, which the law requires should be returned with the writ, and filed with the same in the clerk’s office.” 
      
      See Payne and Fairfax v. Grim, 2 Munf. 297, and Hill v. Harvey. 2 Munf. 525, 526.
     
      
      See Rev. Code, vol. 1, p. 78, sect. 26; p. 87, sect. 20; .and Rev. Code, vol. 2, p. 17.