Case Name: Lemoigne v. Montgomery
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1805-10
Citations: 5 Call 528
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Lemoigne v. Montgomery.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 1037–1038

Head Matter:
*Lemoigne v. Montgomery.
[October, 1805.]
Notice on Forthcoming Bond — Sufficiency of. — If the notice on a forthcoming- bona be signed by the plaintiff, it is sufficient, although it omit to state to whom the bond is made payable, as the defendant, in such a case, has no reason to presume that the plaintiff means to move upon a bond not given to himself.
This was an appeal from a judgment on a forthcoming bond. The notice stated the bond correctly in all instances, except that it omitted to mention to whom it was made payable ; but it was signed by the obligee himself. The defendant appeared, and objected to the sufficiency of the notice ; but his objection being overruled, he filed a bill of exceptions to the opinion of the district court, and appealed to this court.
Randolph, for the appellant
Insisted that the notice was insufficient, as it did not appear, to whom, the bond was made payable ; for this, being a summary remedy unknown to the common law, precision ought to be required.
Harris and Nicholas, contra.
Certainty to a common intent is sufficient in these casés ; and, therefore, it is enough, if the notice gives the defendant such information that he may know how to defend himself. More ought not to be required ; or it would entangle plaintiffs, who have no legal skill, in nets of form, and expose them to infinite delays. Here the notice did give such information, as that the defendant might have known how to defend himself, if he had any defence to offer : For it was impossible to mistake the bond alluded to, as the circumstances are mentioned with a precision approaching to minuteness ; and the detail of them signed by the plaintiff himself: which supplied the necessity of mentioning, to whom, the bond was made payable; for it was not to be presumed that the plaintiff meant to move for a judgment in his own name, upon a bond which was given to another man. Such an inference could not *be made without a wilful perversion of the language of the notice. Winston v. Commonwealth, 2 Call, 246.
Notice on Forthcoming Bond — Sufficiency of. — See foot-notes to Monteith v. Com., 15 Gratt. 172; Board of Supervisors v. Dunn, 27 Gratt. 608. The principal case is cited in Shepherd v. Brown, 30 W. Va. 20, 3 S. E. Rep. 190; 4 Min. Inst. (4th Ed.) 1319; Board v. Parsons, 22 W. Va. 311.

Opinion:
PRR CUR.
Affirm the judgment; for, the plaintiff having signed the notice, there was no ground for the defendant to believe he meant to move upon a bond not given to himself.