Case ID: miles_2/html/0342-01.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

HILL v. RAMSEY.
    October 5, 1839.
    
      Rule to show cause of action, and why the writ should not be set aside.
    
    1. A freeholder to be privileged from arrest, must have an estate clear of incumbrance, and the court will not inquire if the estate is sufficient beyond an incumbrance, to satisfy the amount of the debt.
    2. If the estate of freehold is in this city or county, the defendant need only show its existence and value ; it then rests on the plaintiff, if he objects, to show an incumbrance.
    
      3. If the estate of freehold is in another county, the defendant must not only show its existence and value, but must produce evidence, by the usual certificates of search, of its being clear from incumbrances, and if the plaintiff require it, the plaintiff may examine the defendant, on oath, on the subject of the alleged freehold.
    4. The court may pronounce on the value, from an inspection of the title-papers merely, or at their discretion, they will order additional evidence on that subject to be taken.
    THIS was a capias ad respondendum. The defendant obtained this rule to show cause, on the ground that he was a freeholder.
    Perkins, for plaintiff.
    
      Henderson, for defendant.
    On the hearing of the rule, the counsel discussed the competency of the evidence before the court as to the freehold, and as to its sufficiency.
   The Court

said that the act of 20th March, 1725, about writs of summons and arrests having been revived by the act of 14th April, 1838, (Stroud's Purd. tit. Motion), it became necessary to adopt the practice which had prevailed under the former act. The court stated it to be as is noted at the beginning of the report of this case.