Case ID: va_11/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jones and Others v. Hull.
    Tuesday. June 2, 1807.
    Forthcoming Bond — Judgment on — Reversal—Sheriffs Return.* — The slierid's failing to make a return on an execution is no ground for reversing a judgment obtained on a iorthcoming bond taken in pursuance thereof.
    
      
      Forthcoming Bonds — Judgment on — Reversal- - Sheriffs Return. — The failure of the sheriff to make a return on an execution is no ground for reversing the judgment obtained on a forthcoming bond, taken in pursuance thereof. Harwood v. Creel, 8 W. Va. 382, citing the principal case. See also, Dix v. Evans, 3 Munf. 308.
      On the subject of forthcoming bonds, see generally. monographic note on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsbi v. Strother, 21 Gratt. 107.
      Same — Motion to Quash — Appeal—Record.—In Couch v. Miller. 2 Leigh 515, a motion was made to quash a forthcoming bond for delects apparent on the face oí 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, Jones v. Hull, Bronaughs v. Freeman, 2 Munf. 206, and Burke v. Levy, 1 Rand. 1, were cited. Junan Gabbul, who delivered the opinion of the court, in regard to these cases, said: “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 objection 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 thereiore 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.” See also, foot-note to this case.
    
   This was an appeal from a judgment rendered by the District Court of Hardy on a forthcoming bond. The execution on which the forthcoming bond was founded, was recited in the record, but it did not appear that the sheriff had made any return thereon.

This omission at first created some difficulty. But it was observed that the law only directed the sheriff to return the forthcoming bond to the clerk’s office from whence the execution issued, (Rev. Code, vol. 1, c. 151, sect. 13, p. 298,) unless otherwise directed by the creditor ; (Rev. Code, vol. 1, c. 249, sect. 5, p. 390,) and that the creditor might even dispense with the necessity of the sheriff’s noting on the execution how he had executed it. (Rev. Code, vol. 1, c. 176, sect. 9, p. 325.) In the present case the appellants not having opposed the award of execution upon the forthcoming bond, on any ground whatever, the presumption is that all the proceedings were regular, and that the forthcoming bond was in fact forfeited. — Judgment Affirmed.

Present Judges Dyons, Fleming, and Roane. 
      
       During this term, in the case of Fisher and others v. Davis. (Monday. June 15.) all the Judges being present, the same point occurred. Judgment was in like manner affirmed. — Note in Original Edition.