Case ID: dc_4/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The CouRT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clarke & Briscoe v. James Druet.
    An affidavit, annexed to an account, that it “ is just and true as stated, and no part thereof has been paid, except what is credited,” is sufficient to hold the defendant to bail.
    Motion to rule the defendant to special bail, on the affidavit of Briscoe, one of the firm of Clarke & Briscoe, at the bottom of an account. “That the above account is just and true as stated, and that no part thereof has been paid, except what is credited.”
    
      
      Mr. Morfit, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Mr. Wallach and Mr. Coxe, for the defendant.
    The following cases were referred to: Smith v. Watson, (1 Cranch, C. C. 311); Jolly v. Rankin, (1 Cranch, C. C. 372); Bartleman v. Smarr, at December, 1810, (2 Cranch, C. C. 16); Traverse v. Hight, (2 Cranch, C. C. 41); Way v. Selby, (2 Cranch, C. C. 44); Dawson v. Boyd, not reported ; 1 Sellon, 105, 108.
   The CouRT

(Thrtjston, J., absent,) was of opinion that the affidavit was sufficient, within the rule laid'down by this Court, in the case of Smith v. Watson, at December term, 1805, (1 Cranch, C. C. 311.)