Case Name: REDDISH'S EXECUTORS v. HARRISON AND McHENRY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-04
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 221
Docket Number: 
Parties: REDDISH'S EXECUTORS v. HARRISON AND McHENRY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
REDDISH'S EXECUTORS v. HARRISON AND McHENRY.
Consideration of bond — appeal bond — -execution—substance—averment—certainty.
A bond imports a consideration, in declaring upon a bond, no consideration need be shown. The substance of the plaintiff’s title to recover, is all that need be set out in a declaration.
If it be averred that an execution issued, it will be held equivalent to an averment that it duly issued.
May term, without the year, is too uncertain a description of a judgment relied upon.
Debt, upon an appeal bond, given to appeal a judgment against Harrison, from the Court of Common Pleas, to the Supreme Court. It is averred, that a recovery was had in the Supreme Court, for $> 323 34, at May term, and that an execution issued upon the judgment, which has been returned, nulla tona.
To this declaration, the defendant demurs specially, and assigns the following causes of demurrers, to wit:
1. That there is no judgment in the Common Pleas set forth, from which an appeal was taken.
2. That it is not shown when the judgment in the Supreme Court was had.
3. That it is not averred that any mandate was sent to the Court of Common Pleas, to carry the judgment of the Supreme Court into execution.
4. That it does not appear, that any execution was issued by the Court of Common Pleas.
5. That the kind of execution issued is not set forth.
The case was submitted on briefs, by
Corny, for the demurrants, and
Kimball, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
1. The bond recites a judgment of the Common Pleas, and the declaration is upon the bond. It is not necessary to show the consideration of a bond in declaring upon it. It imports a consideration. The first objection, therefore, fails.
The 3d, 4th and 5th objections, resolve themselves into one, and we will consider them as one. The real question is, does it appear that an execution issued upon the judgment rendered in the Supreme Court, in the case appealed, before suit was brought on the appeal bond? The averment, though not very formal, is, that execution issued and was returned nulla bona. A party is only bound to set forth in substance, what is essential to his title. This general allegation is to the advantage of the defendant, because he may traverse, and have an opportunity of scrutinizing the whole matter embraced in it. The averment, that an execution issued, is in substance an averment that it duly issued, which embraces the Supreme Court mandate, kind of execution, and every thing necessary to constitute a legal writ.
2. As to the time, in the second objection. It is necessary to attain to certainty to a common intent, as to the material facts. When the judgment on which suit is brought was entered, is a material fact. May term, without the year, is too unceitain. It may have.been before the date of the appeal bond, or after this suit was brought. This objection is well taken, on special demurrer.
The plaintiff asked, and had leave to amend, on payment of costs,