Case Name: Slacum v. Jesse Simms, and Peter Wise, Jr., his Surety
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1805-06
Citations: 1 Cranch 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: Slacum v. Jesse Simms, and Peter Wise, Jr., his Surety.
Judges: (Fitzhugh, J., absent,)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Slacum v. Jesse Simms, and Peter Wise, Jr., his Surety.
An insolvent, who obtains a warrant of discharge by fraud, is not discharged in due course of law.
Debt against the principal and surety on a prison-bounds bond; plea, covenants performed ; replication, did not keep in the bounds, but departed without being discharged in due course of law ; rejoinder, discharged in due course of law ; and issue thereon.
Mr. C. Lee, for the defendant,
contended that a warrant of dis- . charge by the magistrates is conclusive evidence that Simms was discharged in due course of law, and is as much a discharge of the bond, as it would be to the sheriff, if the prisoner was in actual custody. In an action for an escape, the warrant of discharge would be conclusive evidence. There is no difference between that case and an action on the prison-bounds bond.
Mr. Swann, contra.
The issue is, whether Simms was discharged in due course.of law. It does not follow that the surety is discharged because the sheriff is discharged. The sheriff is indemnified, because the Act of Assembly expressly makes the warrant an indemnification. The surety is not discharged unless the principal is discharged. But Simms would not be protected against this bond if his discharge was obtained by fraud.
. Mr. Jones, for the defendants,
then prayed an instruction to the jury, that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the warrant of discharge Avas obtained by the fraud of Simms alone, without the participation of the magistrates, or of the defendant, Wise, (the surety,) the warrant ivas not void so as to enable the plaintiff to recover against the defendant, Wise, in this action. Which instruction the Court refused to give; but instructed them that such fraud, if proved, would render the warrant void, and therefore the issue could not be supported on the part of the defendants. . .

Opinion:
The Court
was of opinion,
(Fitzhugh, J., absent,)
that the warrant of discharge is not conclusive evidence that Simms was discharged in due course of law.
Bill of exceptions taken. Verdict for plaintiff, $1600.
Reversed by the Supreme Court, 3 Cranch, 300.