Case Name: WILLIAM D. WAPLES vs. EPHRAIM DERRICKSON
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1833
Citations: 1 Harr. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM D. WAPLES vs. EPHRAIM DERRICKSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
WILLIAM D. WAPLES vs. EPHRAIM DERRICKSON.
To declare in a different form of action from that in which the bail is taken releases the bail.
Foreign attachment case.
A rule was obtained in this case to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece on the ground that the plff. had declared in a different form of action from that in which bail was entered. The bail was taken in an attachment case; the declaration was in debt.
Layton and Frame, for plff.
Cullen and Bayard, for deft.

Opinion:
The plff's. counsel referred to our act of assembly requiring the deft, in an attachment to put in bail to answer any action that the plff. might bring against him; and insisted that this act controlled the English rule, if such a rule existed in the English practice. On the other side it was said that the attachment was merely a substitute for personal service with process, and the rights of bail the same as at common law.
The court directed the exoneretur to be entered.