Case ID: va_16/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bronaughs v. Freeman’s Executor.
    Thursday, May 2d, 1811.
    1. Forthcoming Bonds — Description of Property — Sufficiency. — A forthcoming bond, mentioning the persons against whom the execution issued, and that “they were desirous of keeping in their possession, until the day of sale, the property, taken by the sheriff,” sufficiently describes it as their property.
    2. Same — Variance between Bond and Execution-Effect in Appellate Court. — Where a judgment upon a forthcoming bond is obtained against a defendant, having legal notice, and appearing by attorney, but not moving to quash the bond, nor stating by plea or bill of exceptions, any variance between it and the execution, the appellate court is not to reverse the judgment on the ground of such variance.
    See Downman v. Chinn, Ex’r of Downman, 2 Wash. 189, and Jones, &c. v. Hull, 1 H. & M. 211. 3, Same — Sheriff’s Fees. — The sheriff’s fee fontaking the forthcoming bond may be included in it.
    In the condition of a forthcoming- bond given by John Bronaugh and Thomas Bro-naugh, with Benjamin Bronaugh surety, to Freeman’s executor, the writ of fieri facias was described as “against the goods and chattels of John Bronaugh and Thomas Bronaugh, and levied on two'negroes, which they were desirous of keeping in their possession, until the day of sale,” &c. The sum mentioned in the bond to have been that for which *the execution issued, was 633 dollars and 35 cents ; to which the sheriff’s commissions and fee for taking the bond were added.
    A judgment was entered by the county court of Fauquier, and affirmed by the Hay-market district court, upon this bond ; the defendants having had legal notice of the motion, and appearing by their attorney, without moving to quash the bond, or filing any bill of exceptions. A copy of a writ of fieri facias, apparently differing, as to the sum due, from that recited in the forthcoming bond, was inserted by the clerk in the transcript, but does not appear to have been regularly made a part of the record.
    A writ of supersedeas to the judgment was awarded by a judge of this court ; the petition assigning the following errors, viz.
    1st. That it does not appear, by the forthcoming bond to whom the property taken belonged ; and
    2d. That the condition does not recite the execution truly.
    Botts, for the plaintiffs in error,
    (in the absence of Eove, their counsel,) made another objection; that the sheriff’s’fee of62 cents was improperly included in the bond, 
    
    Williams, contra,
    relied on the case of Eewis v. Thompson and others, 2 Hen. & Munf. 100, as decisively repelling the first objection. He passed over the second without comment; and, as to that mentioned by Mr. Botts, observed, that the point was not settled in Glascock’s Adm’x v. Dawson. It depends on the construction of the act of assembly ; and, as the sheriff is allowed the fee, it seems reasonable that it should be paid by the party giving- the bond.
    
      
       Forthcoming Bonds — Judgment on — Appeal— Record. —Although the judgment on a forthcoming bond, should be rendered for a larger sum than that due by the execution, yet if the execution is not made part of the record by bill of exceptions, nor any objection made in the court below, such objection cannot be sustained in the court of appeals. Burke v. Levy, 1 Rand. 1, 2, citing the principal case as authority.
      In Couch v. Miller, 2 Leigh 545, a motion waS made to quash a forthcoming bond for defects apparent on the face of the execution upon which it was taken. On appeal, it was objected in the court of appeals that the execution not having been made a part of the record, by any express order of the lower court, or by a bill of exceptions filed for that purpose, it was not competent for the appellate court to look into it, and compare it with the bond. In support of the objection, the principal case and Burke v. Levy, 1 Rand. 1, were cited. But Judge Cabell, who delivered the opinion of the court, in regard to these cases, said (p. 548): “It is true that in those cases, the court did refuse to look into the executions. But,'in all of them, the defendants, though they appeared in the court below, had made no obj ection to the bonds, on the ground of their being unauthorized by or variant from the executions. This court said, their failure to make such objections in the court below, furnished ground to presume that the bonds had been rightly taken, so far as related to the executions, and therefore it would not look into the executions, to see whether that was in fact the case or not. The principle on which those cases were decided, does not apply to that which is now before us; for here, it is expressly stated, that the bond was objected to by the defendant, and quashed by the court, on account of defects apparent on the face of the execution. This necessarily made the execution a part of the record, and imposes on the appellate court the duty to look into it, as the only means of testing the correctness of the judgment appealed from. The propriety of this course, in such a case,-is much stronger than if the judgment had been by default, for want of the appearance of the defendant. Yet, itis clear, that even if the judgment had been by default, the court would look into the execution, and compare it with the bond, as was done in Glascock v. Dawson, 1 Munf. 605.” In this case (Couch v. Miller), it was held that upon a motion to quash a forthcoming bond for defects apparent on the face of the execution on which it was taken, an appellate court will regard the execution as part of the record, though not made so by an express order to that effect.
      See principal case also cited on this subject in Central Land Co. v. Calhoun, 16 W. Va. 372; foot-note to Couch v. Miller, 2 Leigh 545, quoting from Central Land Co. v. Calhoun, 16 W. Va. 372. The principal case is also cited in Ayres v. Lewellin, 3 Leigh 614.
      See further, monographic note on Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother, 21 Gratt. 107; monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
    
      
       Same — Sheriff's Fees. — The principal case was cited with approval in Bernard v. Scott, 3 Rand. 527.
    
    
      
       Hubbard v. Taylor, 1 Wash. 259.
    
    
      
       Glascock’s Adm’x v. Dawson, 1 Munf. 608.
    
   * Wednesday, October 9 th. The president pronounced the opinion of the «court, that there is no error in the judgment, which is therefore affirmed.