Case Name: Snowden, Assignee, v. Hemming
Court: Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1784-06
Citations: 1 Dall. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: Snowden, Assignee, v. Hemming.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
Snowden, Assignee, v. Hemming.
Construction of the sta/y-law.
Under the act of 1784, giving a stay of execution, the date expressed in the bond was conclusive, and evidence was not admissible of another date.
In an action of debt upon a bond, judgment being obtained, and execution issued, WilcocJcs moved to stay proceedings, upon this ground ; that though the bond was dated June, the consideration, for which it was given, arose before the 1st of March 1781 ; and therefore, he contended, that his client was within the protection of the act of assembly, passed the 23d of December 1784 (P. L. 412), which entitles a defendant to a stay of execution, for a certain time, upon tendering the interest and costs to the sheriff.
Bradford, for the plaintiff,
was prepared with an affidavit to controvert the facts advanced in support of the motion ; but he forbore reading it, and insisted that the court could not travel into a consideration of the transactions for which the bond was given.
This case appears, from Mr. Rawle’s MSS., to have been argued in March 1758, and not in 1784, as would seem from its place in the text. This explanation is necessary, since the question was upon the construction of an act passed on the 23d of December 1784.

Opinion:
By this Court.
It would occasion infinite trouble and confusion, were the defendant's doctrine to be admitted, and it is impossible to say where the mischief would end. It is true, that before a jury, proof may be made of the consideration, and of the time of delivering a bond; but this act of assembly, which, in particular cases, grants a delay of execution to the defendant, upon the tender of the interest and costs, must, surely, at the same time, recognise the written instrument as conclusive evidence of the contract; and we can inquire no further,
Wilcoolcs took nothing by his motion.
See Field v. Biddle, 2 Dall. 171.