Case Name: Stilman v. Lydia Hosmer, Administratrix of T. Hosmer
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-09
Citations: 1 Root 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stilman v. Lydia Hosmer, Administratrix of T. Hosmer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Stilman v. Lydia Hosmer, Administratrix of T. Hosmer.
The bondsman for the plaintiff to appeal his cause, is liable for the cost the defendant recovers in the action.
Soibe Pactas, declaring that Silas Dean, late deceased, brought bis action of debt on book against said Stilman, which cause said Dean appealed to the Superior Court, and Titus Hosmer, Esq. aforesaid gave bond upon the appeal; that said cause was put to auditors, and before the Superior Court holden at Hartford in September A. D. 1789, he recovered judgment upon the return of said auditors, against said Dean, for the sum of £13 debt and for cost £24; that he immediately took out execution on said judgment for the sums contained therein, which was duly returned non est inventus, and that said Dean had avoided, etc. praying for judgment against said Lydia for the sum in said execution and the cost.
Plea — 'That before the return of said execution, viz. on the 23d of September A. D. 1789, said Dean died. This plea was demurred to.
Judgment — That the plea is insufficient, and for the plaintiff to recover £24 damages, being only the cost, which the death of said Dean could not affect; as no return of non est inventus was necessary to subject the bondsman for the plaintiff to the cost.

Opinion:
The same point was adjudged at the adjourned Superior Court, holden at Windham, in December A. D. 1783, upon a scire facias brought by the County Treasurer v. Bissel, upon a bond given for one Bobbin. The plaintiff, at praying out his writ, set forth the bond, judgment of court and execution, and a commitment of Bobbin to gaol thereon, praying for judgment against the bail; to this declaration, a demurrer was given, and judgment that the declaration was sufficient; for upon such bond nothing will excuse the bondsman but actual payment of the cost; and a bond for the plaintiff upon the appeal of his cause is within the same reason and within the same law, as to cost.