Barnum v. Waterbury
Barnum v. Waterbury
Opinion of the Court
May 26th, 1870, Barnum sued out a capias
The court ruled out all the proceedings in the original suit on the ground that the amendment in regard to Hickock’s name was made without the assent or privity of the bail, and discharged them. There is no occasion to consider this point. If the ruling was erroneous the plaintiff was not prejudiced. The case he tendered and on which he relied was defective. The law prohibits suit on a recognizance of special bail until the sheriff where the arrest was made shall have returned an execution against the defendant’s body that he “could not be found within his county.” Comp. L., § 5763.
All the showing suggested in regard to this was a return of “unsatisfied” on an execution against the body. There was no claim of any other evidence of compliance with the requirement of the statute on this point, and it is too plain for question that the return “ unsatisfied ”
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Henry B. Barnum v. Daniel Waterbury and Lafayette Lovell
- Status
- Published