Case ID: miles_2/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.—", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEWITT v. NICHOLSON.
    July 6, 1839.
    
      Rule to show cause of action, and why defendant should not be discharged on common bail.
    
    An affidavit, averring that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff “ in the sum of $-, for money had and received by defendant, to plaintiff’s use, as deponent (the plaintiff;) verily believes,” without any further averment, is insufficient to hold to bail.
    THIS was an action to June term, 1839, No. 185. The defendant having been arrested on a capias ad respondendum, ruled the plaintiff to show his cause of action. The plaintiff produced his affidavit, averring that defendant was indebted to him “ in the sum of 10,000 dollars, for money had and received by the said defendant, to the use of deponent, as deponent verily believes.”
    
      II. M. Phillips and Meredith, for the rule.
    
      F. W. Hulbell and J. R. Ingersoll, contra.
   Per Curiam.—

An averment by the deponent in an affidavit to hold to bail, that he verily believes defendant is indebted to him, will be ineffectual, unless from the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be unreasonable to require that the deponent should make a more distinct assertion of the existence of the debt. In this case, no such circumstances are detailed, to warrant a departure from the general rule. 2 Burr. 655; 2 Stra. 1209, 1226; 1 Wils. 231; 1 H. Bl. 245; Nevins v. Merrie, 2 Wh. R. 499.

Rule absolute.