Mandeville v. McDonald
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Scire facias against the administrator, trustees, and terre-tenants of S. Eliot, deceased. After stating that a judgment, in favor of the plaintiff, was rendered against the said S. Eliot on the 25th of January, 1820, it commanded the marshal, “ That you make known to the heirs of the said S. Eliot, deceased, and the terre-tenant or terre-te-nants of all the lands, lots,' squares, and tenements in your bailiwick, whereof the said S..' Eliot on the 25th of January, 1820, (on…
Read the full summary
Scire facias against the administrator, trustees, and terre-tenants of S. Eliot, deceased. After stating that a judgment, in favor of the plaintiff, was rendered against the said S. Eliot on the 25th of January, 1820, it commanded the marshal, “ That you make known to the heirs of the said S. Eliot, deceased, and the terre-tenant or terre-te-nants of all the lands, lots,' squares, and tenements in your bailiwick, whereof the said S..' Eliot on the 25th of January, 1820, (on which day the judgment aforesaid was rendered,) or ever afterwards was seized, and to William Brent, John G. McDonald,…
1Opinion of the CourtCranch, C. J.
The question is, whether the motion to quash, the scire facias is the proper remedy.
After looking at all the cases cited, and many more, I think it is.not. The only case which seemed to justify that course is Hillier v. Frost, 1 Str. 401, but that case has been misunderstood. It was not a rule to amend the sheriff’s return of the writ, but to amend the writ of scire facias itself, by making it returnable on Saturday instead of Friday, which was the feast of St. Martin. The motion was made by the plaintiff; but Sir John Strange, who was the plaintiff’s counsel, remarks that “ he had'little t<?…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Beatty's v. ChaplineCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1806
- Arnott v. NichollsGeneral Court of Virginia · 1804
- Baker v. FrenchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1825