Case ID: va_16/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Eppes’s Executors v. Colley.
    Thursday, December 12th, 1811.
    Forthcoming; Bond — Necessity of Filing. — If a forthcoming bond be delivered, by the sheriff, to the plaintiff, before notice thereupon be given to the defendants, execution may be awarded upon it, though it has not been filed in the clerk’s office. See 1 Rev. Code, p. 398, s. 13, and p. 325, s. 3.
    
      
       Forthcoming Bond — Necessity ot Filing. — The statute of executions provides that the officer taking a forthcoming bond shall return it to the clerk’s office, to be there safely kept, and to have the force of a judgment; hut the filing previous to a motion on it is not essential to the motion. Lipscomb v. Davis, 4 Leigh 305: Cabell v. Given, 30 W. Va. 770, 5 S. E. Rep. 442, both citing the principal case. See the principal case also cited in Booth v. Kinsey, 8 Gratt. 575.
      See further, monographic note on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother, 21 Gratt. 107.
    
   In this case the president pronounced the following opinion of this court.

" This in an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Petersburg, reversing a judgment of the county court of Prince George, rendered on motion on a forthcoming bond. The only exception taken by the defendant’s counsel, in the county court, was, that the forthcoming bond, on which the plaintiffs applied for an award of execution, never had been filed in the clerk’s office, as it ought to have been; but the court overruled the exception, {‘because the said forthcoming bond, before notice of the motion had been written, or given to the defendant, was delivered to the plaintiffs, by deputy of the sheriff who took the bond,’) and gave judgment accordingly; which judgment has been reversed by the district .court of Petersburg. I am directed to report the opinion of this court, that the judgment of the district court is erroneous, and therefore reversed, and that of the county court affirmed.