Bell v. Marr
Court of Appeals of Virginia
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Prince Edward, upon" a forthcoming bond, which exceeded the amount of the execution by 23/. 6s. 7i-Judgment was rendered upon the 5th day of Jipril, 1796,-for the amount of the forthcoming bond, without any deduction ; and upon the 8th day of the same month, Marr offered to give credit for the excess, which the Court allowed, and made the following entry: “ Richard Marr, by his attorney, this day entered a credit…
Read the full summary
This was a supersedeas to a judgment of the District Court of Prince Edward, upon" a forthcoming bond, which exceeded the amount of the execution by 23/. 6s. 7i-Judgment was rendered upon the 5th day of Jipril, 1796,-for the amount of the forthcoming bond, without any deduction ; and upon the 8th day of the same month, Marr offered to give credit for the excess, which the Court allowed, and made the following entry: “ Richard Marr, by his attorney, this day entered a credit of twenty-three pounds, six shillings and seven pence half-penny, on the forthcoming bond of the said Marr’s against…
1Opinion of the Court
PENDLETON, President.
Delivered the resolution of the Court to the following effect:
That there was no difference between this case and that of Scott v. Hornsby, decided the other day ; except that the release here, was after the judgment, but in that case, it was before. That the Court, however, thought there was no distinction between the principles of the two cases; and consequently that the judgment, in this, as well as in that case, was right; and ought to be affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1851
- State ex rel. v. PurcellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- Holt v. LynchWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
- Hanna v. Philadelphia Asbestos CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Ambler v. McMechenDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1806
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.