Case ID: va_7/html/0485-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LYONS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glassford & Henderson v. Hackett, Ex’r of Mickleburrough.
    [Friday, April 23d, 1802.]
    Three rionths’ Replevy Bond — What Condition Should State. — In a three months’ replevy bond, the condition ought to state, that the property was restored to the debtor.
    Same — Right of Motion on, against Executors. — The act of Assembly does not give a motion on a three months’ replevy bond, against executors.
    In the'year 1797, Glassford and Henderson, obtained a judgment in the County Court against Hackett, as executor of Mickleburrough, upon a three months’ replevy bond, dated the 11th of May, 1774. The bond was made payable to Glassford & Henderson, and the condition récites, that whereas the Deputy Sheriff had levied an execution, on the estate of Thilman, for 971. 3s. Id. including debt, costs, and Sheriff’s commissions. Now, if the said Thilman and Mickleburrough, should pay to Glassford & Henderson, the said 971. 3s. Id. *within three months from the date, then the obligation to be void.
    The District Court reversed the judgment; and Glassford & Henderson, appealed to this Court.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother, 21 Gratt. 107.
    
   LYONS, Judge.

After stating the case, delivered the resolution of the Court, to the following effect: 1st. That the bond did not recite that the goods had been restored to the debtor, and, therefore, was not a statutory bond upon which a motion could be sustained. 2d. That the act of Assembly did not give a motion against executors upon much bonds. Therefore, quacunque via data, the judgment of the District Court was right, and ought to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.