Case Name: Johnson vs. Goldsborough
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1804-05
Citations: 1 H. & J. 499
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson vs. Goldsborough.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 499–501

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1804.
Johnson vs. Goldsborough.
A writ of error is not a supersede-as where the bond is not jriven in double the amount of the debt and coste recovered. or* where the condition ofsuch bond is, that if the plaintiff in error shall not prosecute such writ of error with effect, the bond shall mt void
In this case a judgment was entered in this court at May term 1803, for ¿£3000 current money debt, and 536 wT. tobacco'costs, to be released on payment of ¿£1459 current money', with interest from the 1st of December 1800, and costs, with a stay of execution until the 1st of August 1804. The defendant on the 10th of July 1804, produced a writ of error endorsed, “bond fih d and securities approved.”
Shaaff, for the plaintiff,
at an adjournment of the court, in August 1804, moved the court that a writ, of capias ail satisfaciendum might issue on the above judgment, notwithstanding the writ of error which had been sued out on the said judgment. And he assigned the following reasons:
1. Because the bond filed in the chancery office to stay execution is not in double the sum recovered, being J?3000 current money debí, a¡?d the quantity of 536 wt. of tobacco, costs; and the said bond is given in the sum of J?6000 current money only, which is not double the money and costs recovered.
2. Because the bond aforesaid, by the condition thereof, is.made a nullity m this, that by the condition of the said bond, if the obligor, Goldsborough, shall not prosecute the writ of error or appeal with effect, &c. and in all things fulfil and pursue the directions of the act of assembly therein mentioned, and also pay and satisfy to the obligee, in case the judgment is affirmed, the amount of the saidjudg-. rnent, &c. then the said obligation is tobe void. According to the tenor of which condition, if the obli-gor, Goldsborougli, shall not prosecute the writ of error with effect, &c. that is, if the judgment shall be affirmed, &c. the said obligation is declared to be void; and by operation of law, if the said obligor shall prosecute the writ of error with effect, &c. that is, if the judgment shall he reversed, &c. the obligation aforesaid will become void; by which means the said bond will, in any etent, become a nullity, and is not according to the act of assembly in such case made and provided.
Proof was made that a copy of the intended motion, and the above reasons, were served on the defendant’s attorney on the 7th of August 1804, with a notice that the court stood adjourned until the 14th of August 1804, when the motion would be made; andan •attested copy of Use bond entered into for prosecuting the writ of error was filed,

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
It appears to the court that the writ of error bond is not a supersedeas, and that the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum may issue, subject to any objections which the defendant may make thereto lipón the return thereof.
CA. SA. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.