Case Name: Burwell v. Anderson & Co.
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1796-04
Citations: 2 Wash. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Burwell v. Anderson & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 706–706

Head Matter:
*Burwell v. Anderson & Co.
April Term, 1796.
Supersedeas — Execution Improperly issued. — A super-sedeas will not lie where an execution has improperly issued upon a twelve-month’s bond. The injured party may move to quash the execution, and the judgment on that motion, if erroneous, may be corrected on an appeal or supersedeas.
The appellant obtained a supersedeas, to remove the record of the proceedings of the County Court of Gloucester, before the District Court of Williamsburg. The record contains a twelve months replevy bond, given by Burwell to Anderson; an affidavit of Matthew Anderson, agent for Matthew Anderson & Co. that the whole amount of the replevy bond was then due. It is then stated, “that a fi. fa. issued on the above bond, on the 12th of October 1793.”
The errors stated in the petition for the supersedeas were, 1st, That it doth not appear in the bond, for what property of the said Burwell 'the same was entered into, as the law intended it should.”
“2d, That the affidavit on which the execution issued upon the said replevy bond, was not made by the creditor, or by his as-signee.”
The District Court quashed the writ of supersedeas with costs, as having improvidently issued, from which judgment Bur-well appealed.
Supersedeas — Substitute (or Writ of Error. — In Virginia a supersedeas serves a different purpose from that which it is made to serve in the courts of other states. In that state it is a substitute for the writ of error in all cases in which it is designed that the judgment of the court below shall be superseded. "Williams v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 249, citing 1 Rob. Pr. p. 660; White v. Jones, 1 Wash. 118; Burwell v. Anderson, 2 Wash. 194; Wingfield v. Crenshaw, 3 Hen. & M. 245. The principal case is cited in Hite v. Wilson, 2 Hen. & M. 287.

Opinion:
ROANE), J.
It is unnecessary to consider the errors stated in the petition for the su-persedeas, though at present, I do not think, there is any weight in them. The only question is, whether the writ of supersedeas improvidently issued or not?
A supersedeas, is one mode pointed out by our law, by which the record of an Inferior Court, may be removed into a Superior Court, and the propriety of the judgment there examined. But there must be a judgment of the Inferior Court; this is apparent from a view of all the laws upon that subject, and particularly from that, which directs the Superior Court upon a reversal, to give such judgment as the Inferior Court ought to have given.
This case, was assimilated by the counsel for the appellant, to an award of execution upon a forthcoming bond, in which case, a supersedeas might properly issue. But in that case, there is a judgment of the court, or an award of execution in nature of a judgment. If the bond in question be faulty, the party might have moved the County Court to quash it, as well as the execution *issued upon it, and the opinion of the court upon such motion might, if erroneous, have been corrected by a Superior Court upon a superse-deas; but in this case, there was no judgment to supersede.
The COURT affirmed the judgment of the District Court.