Case Name: Smith v. Pearce
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1820-04
Citations: 1 Gilmer 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith v. Pearce.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
Smith v. Pearce.
April, 1820.
Attachment— Bond — Recitals — Amount. —Judgment on attachment should not be quashed because the bond given on suing it out, recited only the sum due without mention of interest.
Same Appearance of Defendant. * — It is error tore-fuse leave to the defendant in an attachment, to enter bail and plead, without appearing in person.
Smith brought an attachment against the estate of Pearce an absconding debtor. Pearce not appearing to defend the suit, Smith’s counsel moved the court for an order of sale of the attached effects; and that the amount of Smith’s claim should be paid him. And while the motion was before the court, counsel for Pearce offered special b^il, and filed a plea. But the court refused to admit the bail, and plea offered, which was payment; Pearce’s counsel, craved oyer of the note and attachment. *And excepted to the opinion of the court, refusing to receive bail, and admit the plea. The bond given by Smith and his surety, on obtaining the attachment, recited the amount of the sum for which the attachment was obtained only, without the date of the note, dir any mention of interest.
Pearce’s counsel, appealed from the opinion of the Hustings court of Petersburg, to the Superior court of law for Prince George county.
That court, reversed the judgment of the court of Petersburg, and directed the warrant of attachment to be quashed; alleging as cause of error, that no bond correctly reciting the said attachment, was executed by Smith.
See monographic note on “Attachments” appended to Lancaster v. Wilson, 27 Gratt. 624.

Opinion:
ROANE, Judge.
The court is of opinion, that the judgment of the Superior court of law is erroneous in this, that the bond given on suing out the attachment in the proceedings mentioned, was not so imperfect, as to authorise the judgment quashing the said attachment. That judgment is therefore reversed with costs.
And this court proceeding to give such judgment, as the Superior court ' of law should have given, is farther of opinion, that the Judgment of the county court, is also erroneous, in not permitting the ap-pellee to give special bail, and plead to issue, as he offered to do.
That judgment is therefore also reversed with costs; and the cause is remanded, with directions, to permit the appellee to give special bail, if the same shall be offered; and, that the cause be proceeded in, to a final judgment.