Buddicum v. Kirk
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, in an action of debt against the defendant, as heir-at-law of the obligor, on a bond dated the 20th of September I'/Vt, conditioned to pay 994?. 3s. 5 The defendant, being an infant, pleaded by Archibald McLain, his guardian. 1. Payment; to which there was a general replication and issue. 2. That after the execution of the bond, viz, on the -day of -1184, at, &c., it was accorded and agreed, between the plaintiff and…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, in an action of debt against the defendant, as heir-at-law of the obligor, on a bond dated the 20th of September I'/Vt, conditioned to pay 994?. 3s. 5 The defendant, being an infant, pleaded by Archibald McLain, his guardian. 1. Payment; to which there was a general replication and issue. 2. That after the execution of the bond, viz, on the -day of -1184, at, &c., it was accorded and agreed, between the plaintiff and the said James Kirk (the obligor), in his lifetime, that the said James Kirk should assign and make over to the plaintiff,…
1Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect: — This case comes up on two bills of exception, 1st. As to the notice of taking the deposition ; and 2d. As to its applicability.
1. As to the notice. There are two modes of taking depositions, under the act of congress. By the first, notice in certain cases is not necessary, but the forms prescribed must be strictly pursued. This deposition is not taken under that part of the act. By a subsequent part of the section, depositions may be taken by dedimus potestatem, according to common usage. The laws of Virginia,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Buddicum v. KirkSupreme Court of the United States · 1806