Case Name: Spotswood v. Douglas
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1819-03-09
Citations: 6 Munf. 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Spotswood v. Douglas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 752–752

Head Matter:
*Spotswood v. Douglas.
Decided, March 9th, 1819.
I. Plea of Non Est Factum — Appearance Bail. — A plea of non est factum, in behalf of a person returned as appearance bail, who denies that he ever executed the bail bond, is regular and proper.
In an action of debt in the Superior Court of Prince George county, brought by Samuel Douglas against Robert Spotswood, Norborne B. Spotswood was returned as appearance bail for the defendant; and a judgment at rules in the Clerk’s office was entered against him, as such, in March 1816. At the ensuing term, he moved the Court, (upon his affidavit that the bail bond, produced in Court, had never been signed, sealed, delivered or acknowledged by him, but was a forgery,) to direct an issue to be made up to try the fact whether he had actually executed the same, or not; — or to hear testimony to be introduced by him for the purpose of setting aside the said office judgment; but- the Court overruled the said motions, to which opinion he excepted; — and thereupon filed a plea, that the said supposed bail bond was not his act and deed; to which plea the plaintiff demurred, and issue in law was joined. — The Court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the said Robert Spotswood, and Norborne B. Spotswood as bail for his appearance.
To this judgment a Writ of Supersedeas was obtained from a Judge of this Court on the petition of Norborne B. Spotswood.
See principal case cited in Spotswood v. Higgenbotham, 6 Munf. 314.

Opinion:
The cause was submitted without argument, and
JUDGE ROANE
pronounced the Court's opinion, as follows;—
The Court (not deciding whether the Superior Court did not err in refusing to direct the issue, tendered bjr the appellant, for trying the fact whether he had executed the bail bond or not,) is of opinion that the plea of non est factum thereafter filed, by him, was regularly and properly pleaded; and, the demurrer to the said plea having admitted that the bond in question was not the deed of the appellant, the Court is of opinion that judgment was erroneously rendered' against him in the Superior Court. — The same is therefore reversed, with costs; and this Court, proceeding, &c., is of opinion that the law upon the demurrer to the said plea is for the appellant — *and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court; — in which Court the appellee shall be at liberty to require the cause to be sent to the rules, if he chuses, to be proceeded in against the sergeant for omitting to take appearance bail.