Case ID: h-j_2/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hammond vs. Higgins, et ux.
    
    In an action of dower a judgment was confessed for flic demandant’s dovftr claimed in (lie iands. A wife of Habere facias ¿china ¡n issued, and the demand-ant’s dower laid <?ff. On the return of the Writ, the* county court en* tercel judgment for nominal da® mages, and costs» On appeal, the judgment for the damages and co*tS •was reversed.
    Appeal from Frederick County Court. This was an action of Dower, to which the defendant, (now appellant,) appeared, and confessed judgment, which was entered in favour of the demandants, (now appellees,) for the dower of the wife, of the third part of two tracts of land called, &c. to hold to them in severalty by metes and bounds; and on the prayer of the demandants, a writ of habere facias, scisinam was awarded and issued, to cause them to have full seizin of the third part of the lands, Sic. which writ accordingly issued, and the dower in the lands were laid off'and assigned by a jury, and delivered by the sheriff to the demandants, and on return thereof being made to the county cogrt, the demandants prayed judgment, “as well for their damages sustained by occasion of the detention of the dower of the sejd S. in the lands aforesaid, as also for their costs and charges by them laid out and expended,” &c. The county court entered judgment in favour of the demandants against the defendant, for ‘‘one $mny current money, for their damages sustained by occasion of the detention of the dower aforesaid, as also ninety five pounds and one penny cut rent money, adjudged by the court to the demandants for their costs and charges by them laid out and expended,” &c. From whieh, judgment the defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Cim^e, Ch. J. Pols» Buchanan, Nicholson, arid Earle, J.
    Martin, for the Appellant,
    contended that the whole of the proceedings, after the judgment for do war and the awarding the writ of habere facias scisinam was erroneous. No judgment for damages and costs could be entered after the term at which the judgment for dower ■was rendered. ■ The form of the writ of seizin was erroneous. It-should go to the sheriff only, and he is to be aided by no person unless it is necessary to lay out the land, when he can call on the surveyor of the county fo run it out. Precedents of writs of habere facias scisinam may be. found in Clift’s. Ent. 298. East. Ent. 235. 1 Rich. C. P. 296; and 2 Harr. Ent. 697". The proper return by the sheriff should be, “I have delivered seizin by metes and bounds,” &c. East. Ent. 335. The fo,vm of the writ ' used in the case before the court, is that of a writ of partition, and n,o,t of habere facias, scisinam. The judgment in partition is interlocutory, but in dower it is final. Here the judgment being by confession, there could be no damages and costs even if the application had been made therefor at the proper term..
    
      Shaaff and Taney, for the Appellees.
   The Court

considered that the judgment of the county court, as to the damages and costs recovered, was erroneous,

judgment reversed..