Dickinson v. M'Craw
Court of Appeals of Virginia
Martin Dickinson, administrator with the will annexed of Catherine Thompson, deceased, brought an action of debt against Robert Hammock and James M’Craw, in the Superior Court of Law for Grayson county. It does not appear that Hammock was ever served with process, and the suit was prosecuted against M’Craw alone.
Read the full summary
Martin Dickinson, administrator with the will annexed of Catherine Thompson, deceased, brought an action of debt against Robert Hammock and James M’Craw, in the Superior Court of Law for Grayson county. It does not appear that Hammock was ever served with process, and the suit was prosecuted against M’Craw alone. The action was'founded on an attachment bond, which had been executed by the two defendants jointly, by which they undertook to pay to Catherine Thompson, “all such costs and damages as may accrue for wrongfully suing out a certain attachment then and there obtained,” (viz: in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Cabell
pronounced the opinion of the Court*
The Court is of opinion, that the second plea is bad; for, the administration in North Carolina did not give the administrator appointed there, a right to sue jointly with the administrator appointed in Virginia.
The third plea is also bad; for, if any damages had been sustained, it was not necessary that they should be previously assessed in some other action, to justify an action on the bond.
The fourth plea is also bad. The administration in North Carolina gave no right whatever to sue in this State; much less did it destroy the right of the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Borden v. BordenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- South-Western Railroad v. PaulkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- Wheeling v. BlackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Hooper v. Hooper's Ex'rsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Durkin v. Exchange Bank of VirginiaCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1856
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.