Case ID: ala_11/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GOLDTHWAITE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SMITH & BOWDON v. KNIGHT.
    1. When the judgment is in the name of K. as guardian of C. and after a levy and forthcoming bond, on a jifa, pursuing the judgment another fi. fa. is issued on the bond, in the name of C. by his guardian K. the last execution is irregular, because of the change of plaintiffs, and should be quashed on motion.
    Writ of Error to the Orphans’ Court of Henry.
    At the return of a supet-sedeas sued out by Bowdon and Smith to stay proceedings on a certain execution against them and one Stephen Cawthorn, they moved the court to quash the forthcoming bond and previous writs of fi. fa. on which the execution superseded was founded. The matter is greatly involved by the nature of the previous proceedings, but may be thus stated:
    On the 23d of June, 1845, a judgment was rendered by the orphans’ court of said county in favor of Knight as the guardian of Josiah A. Cawthorn, against Speight his former guardian for $1,453. On this judgment a fi.fa. was issued, and returned no property, previous to the 16th October, 1845. William Cawthorn, Stephen Cawthorn, Geo. Jones, and William Armstrong were the sureties of Speight, on the guardianship bond, executed by him on assuming that trust. George Jones died after the execution of the bond, and John Jones was appointed his executor, or administrator.
    On the 16th October, 1845, Knight sued out a fi. fa. against Speight, and against Wm. Cawthorn, Stephen Cawthorn, Wm. Armstrong, and John Jones, executor of Geo. Jones, who are described as sureties for Speight, guardian as aforesaid. In this fi.fa. is recited the fact that the former fi.fa. had been issued against Speight and returned, no property. This was returned levied on four slaves in the possession of Stephen Cawthorn, one slave in the possession of the widow of George Jones, on two others in the possession of John Jones. This fi. fa. was superseded at the instance of John Jones, on the 4th November, 1845, and the supersedeas continued until the 5th of December of the same year.
    Stephen Cawthorn gave a forthcoming bond with Lewis Bowdon and S. A. Smith as his sureties for the delivery of the slaves levied on in his possession. This bond is dated 31st October, 1845, and recites the execution under which the levy was made, except that the name of the plaintiff is omitted, and its condition is, that the slaves shall be delivered to the proper officer, on the 1st Monday of December then next, by 12 o’clock. It was returned indorsed forfeited, by the non-delivery of the slaves, on the 2d December, 1845.
    On the 27th April, 1846, a fi.fa. was issued, which recites the previous_/}. fa. .issued on the 17th October previously— the giving of the forthcoming bond by Cawthorn, Bowdon and Smith — the return of the same as forfeited — that another execution had previously issued on this bond and was superseded by writ of error, which it was certified to the clerk had not been prosecuted to the court to which it was sued out. It then proceeds to command the making of the sum of $1453, from the goods, &c. of Cawthorn, Bowdon and Smith which James A. Cawthorn by his guardian, Rich’d Knight, on the 23d June, 1845, had recovered of them in the orphans’ court of Henry county.
    There were no other judgments or proceedings other than those recited to justify the several writs of fi. fa. and Smith and Bowdon offered to show by parol, that there was no consideration for the forthcoming bond — that the property levied on did not belong to Cawthorn, or to any of the defendants in execution. This proof was ruled out, and the court refused to quash the bond on the execution on the 27th April, 1846. The parties prayed an appeal to this court, and open by their assignment of error all the questions raised on their motions in the court below.
    Belser and Buford, for the plaintiff in error.
    No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.
   GOLDTHWAITE, J.

There is one error in this case, which is entirely apparent, and as the entire litigation between these parties will probably be ended by the reversal of the main judgment in the case of Speight v. Knight, at this term, we shall only examine that for the purpose of disposing of this record. It will be seen the fi. fa. of the 27th April, 1846, is in the name of Cawthorn by his guardian, Knight, while the previous proceedings, as well as the main judgment, are in the name of Knight, as the guardian of Cawthorn. The execution in that form has nothing to support it, and for this reason should have been quashed. Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.