Case ID: scl_45/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia, per O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charity Hamilton, Assignee, vs. Arthur Hamilton.
    
      Prison Bonds’ Ad, Discharge under — Estoppel.
    A discharge under the prison bounds’ Act is a bar to an action on the prison bounds’ bond.
    BEFORE MTJNRO, J. AT MARION, SPRING TERM, 1858.
    This was an action of debt on a prison bounds’ bond against the defendant as surety of Tristram Hamilton.
    Tristram Hamilton bad been discharged under the prison bonds Act. The notice was dated 29th September, 1856, and Ms discharge was on the 8th October, 1856, and the only question was whether sufficient notice bad been given. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
    
      Tbe defendant appealed on tbe ground, inter alia, because tbe Court could not look behind tbe prisoner’s discharge.
    
      Sellers, for appellant,
    cited Hibler vs. Hammond, 2 Strob. 106; Martin <& Walter vs. Stribling, 2 Sp. 67; Caldwell vs. Metz, 2 Sp. 95.
    
      Phillips, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

In this case, we think tbe discharge of the prisoner, under the prison bounds’ Act concludes the question now attempted to be made. The case of Hibler vs. Hammond, 2 Strob. 105, which ruled, that the discharge of a prisoner under the insolvent debtors’ Act is a bar to the action, on the prison bounds’ bond, is decisive of this. • • '

For the discharge of the Commissioner of Special Bail within his jurisdiction is as much res judicata as a discharge by the Court under the insolvent debtors’ Act. Neither can be questioned while unreversed.

This decision concludes the plaintiff’s rights, and it will be useless to further litigate the matter.

It is therefore ordered that the verdict be set aside and a non-suit granted.

Wardlaw, WhitNer, Glover AND MuNro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.