Case Name: Henry Bell and Cary Harrison, v. Richard Marr
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1797-10-27
Citations: 1 Call 47
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Henry Bell and Cary Harrison, v. Richard Marr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 20–20

Head Matter:
*Henry Bell and Cary Harrison, v. Richard Marr.
[Friday, October 27, 1797.]
Forthcoming Bond — Excess—Release. —If the forthcoming- bond include an excess, and the plaintiff after judgment, but during the same term, release the excess, the defect is thereby cured; and the judgment rendered valid.
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Prince Edward, upon a forthcoming bond, which exceeded the amount of the execution by 231. 6s. 7%. Judgment was rendered upon the 5th day of April, 1796, for the amount of the forthcoming bond, without any deduction; and upon the 8th day of the same month, Marr offered to give credit for the excess, which the Court allowed, and made the following entry:
“Richard Marr, by his attorney, this day entered a credit of twenty-three pounds, six shillings and seven pence half-penny, on the forthcoming bond of the said Marr’s against Henry Bell and Cary Harrison, which credit bears date August the 27th, 1794, and on which said bond a judgment was entered the fifth day of this month, being the amount of an error made by the Sheriff in taking the said bond, on the motion of said Marr, by his attorney, the said sum of twenty-three pounds, six shillings and seven pence half-penny, is entered as a credit for so much against said judgment, agreeable to the date last mentioned.”
See foot-note to Scott v. Hornsby, 1 Call 41.
The principal case is cited in State v. Purcell, 31 W. Va. 56, 5 S. E. Rep. 307; Holt v. Lynch, 18 W. Va. 571; Ambler v. McMechen, Fed. Cas. No. 373, 1 Fed. Cas.,page 593; Osborne v. Crawley, 1 Va. Cas. 114, and note.

Opinion:
PENDLETON, President.
Delivered the resolution of the Court to the following effect:
That there was no difference between this case and that of Scott v. Hornsby, decided the other day; except that the release here, was after the judgment, but in that case, it was before. That the Court, however, thought there was no distinction between the principles of the two cases; and consequently that the judgment, in this, as well as in that case, was right; and ought to be affirmed.