Case ID: cole-cai-cas_1/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brantingham's Case.
    
    THE defendant, having been surrendered in discharge of his bail, and thereupon committed to custody, the plaintiff proceeded to judgment, but suffered more than three months to elapse after judgment was entered, without charging the defendant in execution. He was then summoned before his honour Mr. Justice Benson, at his chambers, to show cause why a supersedeas should not issue, because he had not charged the defendant in execution, within the time prescribed by the 12th section of the act, entitled “ An act for the relief of debtors, with respect ££ to the imprisonment of their persons,” passed the 13th of February, 1789. The plaintiff, after notice of the application, and before the time of attendance, charged the defendant in execution, and on the hearing, showed that for cause.
   His honour Judge Benson, reserved the question, and stated the case to the judges at a conference, at which they were all present.

They were of opinion that a supersedeas ought not to be allowed : That the intent of the statute was to enable the defendant to put the plaintiff to his election, either to charge the defendant’s body in execution, or to resort to his estate; and the plaintiff" having made his election before the supersedeas was allowed, the defendant was not entitled to his discharge.