Sisco v. Hurlburt
Supreme Court of Vermont
Audita Querela. The defendant, in the county court, filed a motion to dismiss, because, as he alleged, the judge who allowed and signed the writ took no security by way of recognizance. 'There was a minute of recognizance upon the writ, signed by the Judge, in these words; — “Ira Colburn, Charles A. Garland and ‘ Charles Sisco recognized to the defendant, conditioned for the * re-delivery of the said Hiram Sisco to the custody of the officer ‘ having the same, if the same…
Read the full summary
Audita Querela. The defendant, in the county court, filed a motion to dismiss, because, as he alleged, the judge who allowed and signed the writ took no security by way of recognizance. 'There was a minute of recognizance upon the writ, signed by the Judge, in these words; — “Ira Colburn, Charles A. Garland and ‘ Charles Sisco recognized to the defendant, conditioned for the * re-delivery of the said Hiram Sisco to the custody of the officer ‘ having the same, if the same shall be awarded, and for payment of ‘ all intervening damages, and in default thereof, the payment of * debt, damages and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hebard, J.
The defendant, in his motion, alleges that no recognizance was taken. If any was taken, it should appear from the writ. The writ was before the court, and they must take notice of whatever there was upon it. If there had been any recognizance taken, that would answer the requirements of the law; the plaintiff undoubtedly would have been at liberty to have replied that fact, and evidenced it in any proper manner. As he did not offer to do that, the court, having their attention called to the subject, must pass upon the question with such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. StacySupreme Court of Vermont · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Taft v. TaftSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Wescott v. BriereSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941