Brown v. Stacy
Supreme Court of Vermont
Audita Querela, to set aside a judgment of a justice of the peace. The recognizance was in the form prescribed by the 11th section of the judiciary act, Revised Stat. 61. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that there was no sufficient security to the defendant, by way of recognizance, for costs. Plea overruled by the County Court.
Read the full summary
Audita Querela, to set aside a judgment of a justice of the peace. The recognizance was in the form prescribed by the 11th section of the judiciary act, Revised Stat. 61. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that there was no sufficient security to the defendant, by way of recognizance, for costs. Plea overruled by the County Court. The defendant then pleaded the general issue, and, under that plea, proved that the original suit, before the justice, was continued from the 24th day of April, 1835, to the 28th day of the same month, at nine o’clock: in the forenoon ; on which day the parties…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
The first question arises on the plea in abatement. It is alleged in the plea, that no security was given for cost, by way of recognizance. On examination, it is apparent that such a recognizance was taken by the authority issuing the writ, as is required by the 11th Section of the judiciary act, the condition of which is undoubtedly intended to secure the cost. The judges, who allowed and signed the writ, are not authorized, and would not have been justified in taking any other recognizance, or a recognizance with any other condition,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Zen v. Koon ChanHawaii Supreme Court · 1923
- Paddleford v. BancroftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Phelps v. BirgeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- State v. BruceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Sisco v. HurlburtSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.