Case ID: va_15/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "* JUDGE ROANE", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Newell v. Wood, Governor of the Commonwealth.
    Wednesday, May 9, 1810.
    i. Supersedeas — Service—On Whom, — A writ of supersedeas, to a judgment obtained in the name of the governor, for the benefit of a relator, ought to be served on such relator, and not on the governor.
    
      a. Court of Appeals — Jurisdiction.—The court of ap. peals had jurisdiction to revise any judgment on a hond, provided the penalty amount to the sum limited by law.
    3. Bonds — Joint and Several — How Suit Must Be Brought Thereon. — The point decided in Leftwich v. Berkeley, 1 H. & M. 61, was in like manner decided in this case.
    4. Judgment. — If a court give aright judgment for a wrong reason, it ought, nevertheless, to be affirmed.
    In an action of debt in the County Court of Wythe, on a Sheriff’s bond, in the name of James Wood, (who sued for the benefit of William Ingledove,) the declaration, in the beginning thereof, complained of James Newell, Stephen Saunders and Henry Hamilton, in custody, &c. of a plea that they render unto the plaintiff thirty thousand dollars, which they owe and unjustly detain ; for that, whereas the said defendants, and a certain Andrew Thompson, William Drope and John Hay, by their certain writing obligatory, sealed with their seals,” &c. ‘‘acknowledged themselves to be held and firmly bound, yet the said defendants, or the said William Drope, Andrew Thompson, and John Hay, have not paid,” &c. After a common order confirmed against the defendants, leave was given to amend the declaration by making Thompson and Drope and William Hay, administrator of John Hay, defendants. But no amendment appears to have been made. • A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, the defend-, ants'filed errors in arrest of judgment; alleging that ‘‘they, as sureties of Andrew Thompson, were not liable to the plaintiff, until the said plaintiff had established his claim in a suit against Andrew Thompson, their principal.” The County Court arrested the judgment. But on an appeal to the Washington District Court, that judgment was reversed, and judgment entered for thirty thousand dollars, (the penalty of the bond,) tobe discharged by the payment of 23 dollars and 40 cents, (the damages assessed by the Jury,) and such other 556 damages as may be hereafter ^assessed upon suing out a scire facias thereon, and assigning new breaches.”
    
    A writ of supersedeas to this judgment was awarded by a Judge of the Court of Appeals; which writ was executed on William Ingledove, the relator, and not on James Wood, the nominal plaintiff. This was afterwards determined by the Court to have been sufficient and proper service of the writ.
    Wickham, for the plaintiffs
    in error, assigned the following reasons for reversing the judgment:
    ' 1st. Because the suit was not commenced against all the obligors jointly, nor any one of them severally; but against three out of six obligors, 
    
    2d. Because if, in consequence of the order, made in the County Court, authorizing the plaintiff to make Andrew Thompson, William Drope, and William Hay, administrator of John Hay, deceased, defendants, these persons should be deemed parties to the suit and judgment, the said judgment is erroneous in this, that William Hay, as administrator, is joined in the same suit with others who are sued in their own right; which is contrary to law.
    He contended, also, that this case was within the jurisdiction of the Court; although the damages recovered amounted only to 23 dollars and 40 cents; because the matter in controversy was more than 100 dollars; and because, by the judgment of the District Court the plaintiffs in error were liable for the sum of 30,000 dollars, which might be recovered on the assignment of new breaches.
    The Court (consisting of all the Judges) agreed in opinion, that the first error assigned was fatal, upon the authority of Leftwich v. Berkeley, and that this Court has jurisdiction in all cases where the penalty of the bond is sufficient; the judgment being always for the penalty, to be discharged by the damages, &c.
    
    
      
      Court of Appeals — Jurisdiction.—See monographic mote on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
      The principal cáse was cited in note to Lewis v. Long, 3 Munf. 155.
    
    
      
      Bonds — Joint and Several — How Suit Must Be Brought Thereon. — See foot-note to Leftwich v. Berkeley, 1 Hen. & M. 61; Cook v. Berkley, 3 Call 378.
    
    
      
      Note. See 1 Wash. 91, 92, Bibb v. Cauthorne.
    
    
      
       Leftwich v. Berkeley, 1 H. & M. 61.
    
    
      
       No appeal now lies to the Court of Appeals from any judgment on a forthcoming hond; hut only a writ of error or supersedeas; 2 Rev. Code, p. 128, s. 3.—Note in Original Edition.
    
   * JUDGE ROANE

observed, that the Co.unty Court had rendered a right judgment, though for a wrong reason.

Judgment of the District Court reversed, and that of the County Court affirmed.