Case ID: va_16/html/0443-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Monroe (Governor) v. Redman and Others.
    Tuesday, April 23d, 1811.
    
    1. Bonds — Statute—Application.—Qutere, whether the proviso in the 24th section of the district court law extends to suits upon ioint and several bonds, with collateral conditions to be performed by the principal obligor only, as well as to bonds with collateral conditions to be performed by the obligors jointly or severally?
    2. Jurisdiction — Non-Residence—When Objection Too Late. — It is too late, after issue joined, to object to the court's jurisdiction, on the ground of non-residence of the defendant.
    In an action upon a sheriff’s official bond, in the district court of King and Queen, the writ was served on Vincent Redman, (the sheriff,) and Douchee G. Tebbs, one of the securities ; the return being that the other securities were no inhabitants. Issue was joined on the plea of nil debet; and, when the cause came on for trial, the defendants proved that the defendant Redman resided in Richmond county, out of the King and Queen district, at the time of issuing the writ; and (admitting the defendant Tebbs to have resided within the district at that time) they moved the court to dismiss the suit, as no writ of capias ad respondendum had been previously issued ^against the said Redman in the district in which he resided : whereupon the suit was accordingly dismissed; “The court considering that the defendant Redman was bound by the obligation for performance of a personal duty, in which the defendant Tebbs was not jointly, or jointly and severally, bound.”
    
    On the motion of Archibald M’Call, (the relator, for whose benefit the suit was brought,) an appeal was taken.
    Williams, for the appellant,
    relied on the proviso in the 24th section of the district court law, as authorizing the action in this case, though one of the defendants resided out of the district.
    Wirt, contra.
    The proviso applies to bonds, or covenants, for payment of money, or for performance of joint and several contracts; but not to bonds with collateral conditions. The contract here is, that the sheriff shall perform the duties of his office ; not that the securities as well as the sheriff shall.
    Williams, in reply.
    This is certainly “a joint and several bond for the performance of a contract,” viz. that the sheriff should perform his duty.
    Besides, the defendant appeared and pleaded; after which it was too late to take an objection of this nature, 
    
    
      
       See monographic note on “Jurisdiction” appended to Phippen v. Durham, 8 Gratt. 457.
    
    
      
       Rev. Code, vol. 1. p. 77.
    
    
      
       Bradley v. Welch, lMunf. 284; Williams, &c. v. Campbell, 1 Wash. 163.
    
   Wednesday, April 24th.

The Judges, CABELE, BROOKE, ROANE and DEEMING

concurred in opinion that, after issue joined, it was too late to take advantage of the non-residence of the defendant; Roane observing that he conceived the point settled in Bradley v. Welch, and the true construction of the act of assembly to be, that the *writ is to be dismissed, upon condition that advantage be taken on the first calling of the cause.

Judgment unanimously reversed, and cause remanded for farther proceedings upon the issue joined. 
      
       Note. See 3 Tuck. Bl. Appendix, note D. p. 51. and 1 Wash. 153,154.
      N. B. No opinion was given upon the point, whether the suit might have been dismissed if the objection had been taken in time. — Note in Original Edition.