Case Name: Fleming v. Bradley
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1797-10-18
Citations: 1 Call 203
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Fleming v. Bradley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 77–77

Head Matter:
*Fleming v. Bradley.
[Wednesday, October 18, 1797.]
Habeas Corpus — Service. —Habeas corpus cum causa, must be served on the Court, or delivered to the Sheriff. • •
This was a motion for a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Richmond, upon the following case: The petitioner was sued by Bradley, in the County Court of Goochland, in an action of'debt, and was held to bail. At November rules, there was a conditional order; at December rules, the conditional order was confirmed, “unless the defendant should appear at the next quarterly sessions to be held for the said County, and answer the bill .afores&id. ” On the 23d of March, he gave special bail; but, did not plead. On the 24th of March, the bait surrendered him to the Sheriff, who .gave a certificate that he had him in custody. On the 25th of March, a writ of habeas corpus cum causa, issued from the District Court of Richmond (but it does not appear that it was ever presented to the Court, or delivered to the Sheriff:) And on the 26th of March, being the last day of the term, the Court on the motion of the plaintiff confirmed the conditional judgment. The District Court' awarded a procedendo. To which order, the plaintiff prayed a writ of supersedeas.
Duval, for the plaintiff.
The act of 1792, R. C. 98, [ed. 1794, 13 Stat. Larg. 465,] only, restrained the removal of the suit to cases, where there is an issue or demurrer joined, and does not extend to those where there is no appear.ance. There is good sense in the distinction too. Ifor, it is reasonable that a man who is sued in a Court, and has submitted to the jurisdiction by pleading, or otherwise referring- the cause to their decision, should not be allowed to translate the suit into another Court, until a final hearing; but, it is otherwise, where he has never submitted at all, as in the present case.
See monographic note on “Habeas Corpus” appended to Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276.

Opinion:
*PER CUR.
It does not appear that the writ of habeas corpus was ever shewn to the County Court, or delivered to the Sheriff, without which there could be no removal of the cause'.
Supersedeas denied.