Case Name: Levin Bozman, v. John Armstead, and Benjamin Fessenden
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-07
Citations: 2 Mur. 328
Docket Number: 
Parties: Levin Bozman, v. John Armstead, and Benjamin Fessenden.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 328–328

Head Matter:
Levin Bozman, v. John Armstead, and Benjamin Fessenden.
Washington.
Equity. The act of 1810, ch. 12, relates only to the remedy on. injunction bonds : — the act of 1800, ch. 0, requires the bond to be taken. The mode of proceeding presented by the act of 1810, to. wit, by sci. fa. may be pursued on all injunction bonds, whether taken before orsince the act of 1810.
The question in this case arose upon a demurrer to a sciri facias- Levin Bozman recovered a judgment at Jaw against John Morrison, who obtained an injunction and gave John Armstead and Benjamin Fessenden, securities. The bond for the injunction bore date on 23d December, 1807. The injunction was dissolved and the bill retained as an original bill, and finally dismissed. In October, 1816, a sci.fa. issued, on the injunction bond against the securities, Armstead and Fessenden, to shew cause, why execution should not issue against them for the amount of the judgment and costs recovered at Jaw, by Bozman against Morrison. To this sci.fa. the Defendants demurred, and the Plaintiff having joined in demurrer, the case was sent to this Court.

Opinion:
IíueKIN, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case comes here upon the objection, that the act of 1810, ch. 12, does not extend to this bond, which was executed before the passage of that act. Upon looking into the act, it is found to relate only to the remedy upon injunction bonds, which the legislature can alter from time to time, as shall seem expedient. The true construction of the act seems to be, that the obligee might sue by sci. fa. on all such bonds, whether executed after or before the passage of the act j for it professes only to regulate the mode of proceeding on the bond, which the act of 1800, ch. 9, bad required to be taken ; and we see no reason why the remedy should be different on one bond, from what it is on another- Judgment for the Plaintiff on the demurrer.