Case ID: tenn_12/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McIntyre vs. Halford.
    The bond taken upon executing a ca. sa. to appear and render a schedule of property, &c. must recite the ca. sa. and the parties to the judgment, or it cannot be enforced.
    When such bond is taken, and it appears that the original judgment is satisfied, no judgment will be rendered on the bond.
    A capias ad satisfaciendum issued upon a judgment for $37 50, recovered by McIntyre against Joseph Hal-ford; which being executed upon him, he, together with Bradly Halford, executed the following bond: “ Know all men by these presents, that we, Joseph Halford and Bradly Halford, are each held and firmly bound unto C. McIntyre, in the penal sum of seventy-five dollars; to he void upon condition that the said Joseph Halford make his personal appearance at the court house in the town of Lawrenceburgh, on the first Wednesday after the first Monday in April next, before the worshipful the county court of Lawrence county, then sitting, and surrender a schedule of his property on oath, or take the insolvent debtor’s oath, or pay and discharge a debt, for which this day a ca. sa. has been executed upon him for $37 50, besides costs, then this bond, to be void, otherwise to remain in full force in law. Given under our hands and seals, February 27th 1832.
    “Joseph Halford, {seal.)
    
    “Bradly Halford, (seal.)”
    
    The ca. sa. also recited, that a fieri facias had been levied upon the property of the defendant; but it does not show that it was disposed of. The conditions of the , , , . ... . , . . . bond not being complied with, the county court, upon motion, rendered judgment on this bond against the obli-gors; a writ of error was prosecuted to the circuit court, where the judgment of the county court was reversed and the defendants discharged; from this judgment the plaintiff appealed in error to this court.
    Rivers, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Combs, for defendants in error.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

We do not perceive any error in the judgment of the circuit court. The bond taken by the officer, and returned by him, is defective, in not reciting the ca. sa. and also in not reciting the parties to the judgment.

The ca. sa. also shows by recital, a satisfaction of the judgment by the levy of a fieri facias upon property, which, prima facie, was sufficient to satisfy the $37 50, and it does not show what disposition was made of this property; for this cause no judgment could be rendered on the l^|d.

The judgment must be affirmed; the costs of course follow the termination of the suit. Act of 1801, ch. 1, sec. 74.

Judgment affirmed.