Case ID: tyl_1/html/0300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Sed per Curiam.\n     \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Coit, John Pomroy, and Joshua Chamberlain, against Samuel B. Sheldon.
    After an appearance and imparlance, all defects in personal service ai;e waived.
    ERROR. ' This writ was brought to reverse a judgment recovered by the defendant in error against the now plaintiffs, by the consideration of Chittenden County Court, February term, A. D. 1801, op default, upon an action of debt on a bail-bond, jointly and severally made and executed by the plaintiffs in error to the sheriff of Chittenden County, for the admitting William Coit to the liberties of the prison yard. Bond assigned by James Sawyer, sheriff, to the present defendant, in the words following, to wit:
    Know all men by these presents, that I, James Sawyer, the sheriff within named, do hereby assign and set over the within bond or obligation to Samuel B. Sheldon, the plaintiff herein mentioned, pursuant to the law in that case made and provided.
    In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 21st day of May, Amio Domini 1800.
    
      James Saxvyer.
    
    Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of
    
      Jos. Smith.
    
    The original writ dated 15th July, 1800 ; the officer’s return on the same.
    
      Richmond, August 28th, 1800. Then served this writ by attaching the body of Joshua Chamberlain, and took the underwritten bail for his appearance at Court.
    
      James Sawyer, Sheriff.
    And also'took Job Boynton for bail for the other two defendants’ appearances.
    
      James Sawyer, Sheriff,
    Bail,
    
      Sylvanus Church, Job Boynton.
    
    
      General issue pleaded, and record exhibited in oyer. -
    Besides the general assignment of errors, and the common exception that the judgment ought to have been rendered in the reverse, the plaintiffs in error assigned the following:
    First. There is error in this, for that the said assignment, by said James Sawyer, sheriff, of the bail-bond mentioned in said Sheldo7i>s writ and declaration mentioned, ought by law to have been made and executed under the hand and seal of the said sheriff, and the same is so described in said Sheldon’s writ and declaration; whereas in truth and in fact the said sheriff did not affix any seal to said assignment, as appears by the exemplification of the said assignment on the records of the County Court spread here, exhibited in Court.
    Secondly. There is error in this, that it does not appear, by the sheriff’s return on said writ and process of the said Sheldon against them the said William Coit, John Pomroy, and Joshua Chamberlain, that any service or notice, of the same writ or process was made or given to the said William Coit and John Pomroy, as the law in such cases requires.
    After some conversation rather desultory upon the necessity of affixing a seal, which it was contended by the defendant’s counsel was not necessary in a statute assignment, because such assignment is operative, not from the act of a private individual, which ought to be accompanied with certain solemnities indicative of his deliberate consent, but by force of the law operating through the ministry .of its known officer; and after a recurrence to the 11th section of the “ act relating to gaols and gaolers, and for the relief of persons imprisoned therein,” the first exception in error was abandoned:
    On the second exception, the counsel for the plaintiffs contended, that it was apparent by the officer’s return on the original writ, that no notice of the suit had been given to two of the then defendants. The return simply states, that the sheriff had taken Job Boynton for bail for the appearances of the other two defendants.
   Sed per Curiam.

The Court have inspected the record. We find that the suit on the bail-bond brought by Samuel B. Sheldon as assignee of the sheriff against the present plaintiffs in error, was entered at the September term of Chittenden County Court, 1800, when all the defendants, now plaintiffs in error, appeared by their attorney Elnathan Keyes, an enrolled attorney of the Court. The cause was continued under a rule entered by agreement of parties, that judgment should be entered by default at the February term, 1801.

After an appearance and imparlance, all defects in personal service are waived.

Plaintiff’s counsel. With submission, we conceive, that the appearance of Mr. Keyes, who was merely the attorney of Chamberlain, ought not to operate against the other defendants, who had no notice of the suit.

Whenthename of an attorney appears on the record, the Court will not suffer the record to be controvei-ted.' If a party has been injured by the appearance of counsel not retained, he may¡ have his remedy.

IF. C. Harrington and John Fay, for plaintiffs.

---5 for defendant.

Per Curiam.

The record is express. Mr. Keyes appeared as the attorney of all the then defendants, and entered into a rule for an imparlance; and it is probable that the defendants’ waiver of their plea in abatement for want of sufficient service, was the quid pro quo for the consent of Sheldon to the continuance.

But be this as it may, the record must not be controverted. The plaintiffs in error, it appears by it, have had their day in Court in the original suit.

If the fact be, that Mr. Keyes appeared for them without being engaged, which is not readily presumable in an officer of this Court, especially a gentleman of Mr. Keyes’ character, Pomroy and Coit have their action for the injury, and they must resort to it. They cannot have relief in the present suit. The defendant in error must not suffer by their laches, or the misconduct of their attorney of record.

Let judgment be entered, that the Court have inspected the record, and find that there is no error therein; that the judgment of the County Court is affirmed, and that the defendant in error have his costs.