Case ID: stew_1/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JUDGE PERRY", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ward et al. v. Alexander and Bills.
    1. la appeals or writs of error from the County to the Circuit Courts, the Court may, on affirmance, give fifteen per cent damages.
    2. The act of January, 1826, by which the Supreme Court is authorized to render judgement against securities in appeal or writ of error bonds, does not authorize <he Circuit Courts to do so on appeals or writs of error from the County Courts.
    3- That act did not alter the mode of proceeding against securities in such cases
    A. R. Alexander and J. H. Bills recovered a judgement against P. Ward, in the Count)' Court of Lauder-dale county, at January term, 1826, in an action of debt. Ward on the 17th of July, 1826, sued out a writ of error on said judgement, returnable to the (circuit Court of said countv; and gave bond with Samuel Maxwell and Waller Ford as his securities, to supersede the execution. At October term, 1826, the Circuit Court of Lauderdale, on the errors assigned, affirmed the judgement of the County Court, awarded fifteen per cent damages on the amount for the delay, and rendered judgement against the securities, Maxwell and Ford, as well as against Ward, the principal. On the 10th of December, 1827, Ward, Maxwell and Ford, sued their writ of error to reverse tbe judgement of the Circuit Court; and assign in this Court, among other things, that the Circuit Court erred in rendering judgement against the securities, and also in awarding the fifteen per cent damages,
    Martin, for the pláintiffs in error.
    Shortridge and Ellis, for the defendants.
   JUDGE PERRY

delivered the opinion of the Court.

By a reference to the different statutes relating to appeals and wiits of error, the liability of securities in appeal and writ of error bonds, and the method of enforcing that liability, it will be found, that previous to tbe act of January, 1826, 0 on the affirmance of judgements either in the Circuit or Supreme Court, a certificate of such affirmance went to the Court below; and if the judgement was not satisfied, a scire facias issued against the securities, to bring them into Court to shew cause why judgement should not be entered against them. This was the manner of proceeding against securities until the passage of the act above referred to. This act provides that the Supreme Court shall,' in all cases of affirmance ofjudgements rendered by any inferior Court, give judgement against the security or securities in the bond, executed on obtaining the appeal or writ of error. It is the opinion of the Court, that the provisions of this act do not apply to writs of error prosecuted in the Circuit Courts, because it only authorizes the Supreme Court, by name, to render judgement against the securities in appeal or writ of error bonds prosecuted in the Supreme Court, and there is no provision in the act extending the same powers to the Circuit Court. The liability of securities, and the mode of enforcing that liability against them on bonds for appeals or writs of error from the County to the Circuit Courts, remains the same as it was before the passage of the act referred to. The case of Brown, Maxwell and others, against Butler, determined at the last term of this Court, decided the principle involyed in this case. In the opinion of the Court, there was no error in awarding judgement for fifteen per cent damages; but there was error in rendering judgement against the securities. The judgement must therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.

Note. See Bishop against Cox and Noble, Minor’s Ala Tiepi 204. and Otys’ administrator against Rives, ibid, 401, as to the damages,

Judge White not sitting.