Case Name: Strong v. Meacham
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-02
Citations: 1 Root 391
Docket Number: 
Parties: Strong v. Meacham.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
Strong v. Meacham.
A judgment against a defendant wlio is out of the state, upon default, ought to he that execution issue upon the plaintiff’s giving bond according to the statute.
ErkoR to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action brought by Meacham against Strong on hook describing him to be of Hartford in the county of Windsor in the state of Vermont, which action was continued to April County Court A. I). 1791, when said court gave judgment against him upon his default of appearing, and for the plaintiff to recover £20 debt and Ms cost, and that execution issue for the same accordingly; that on the 10th of October A. D. 1791 said Meacham. prayed out his execution on said judgment for the sums therein contained without having lodged a bond with the clerk of said court agreeable to the statute in such cases provided. >
Errors assigned- — That execution ought not to have been granted until a bond was lodged with the clerk as .aforesaid, and that said judgment ought to have been so entered up. 2d. That the granting of said execution as aforesaid was contrary to an express law of this state.
Judgment —- M anifest error.

Opinion:
The statute referred to above, directs how actions brought against persons out of the state shall be continued; and that after such continuances the court may proceed to render judgment against them by default; and in such cases where judgment shall be entered up by default, after such continuances as aforesaid execution shall be stayed and not issue thereon until the plaintiff shall have given or lodged with the clerk, a bond with one or more sufficient sureties to the adverse party, in double the value of the estate or sum recovered by said judgment to make restitution and to refund such sum as shall be given in debt or damage as shall be recovered in a suit therefor, to be brought witHn twelve months, next after entering up the first judgment, etc. The judgment in this case is, that execution, issue accordingly — whereas, the law is, that it shall not issue until bond is given as aforesaid, the judgment is therefore directly against the law. For the judgment ought to have been, that execution issue upon the plaintiff's procuring bond agreeable to tbe statute in suck cases provided.
This judgment was afterwards affirmed in the Supreme Court of Errors.