Kennedy v. Brent

• Decision Date: 01 February 1810
• Citation: 6 Cranch 187,10 U.S. 187,3 L.Ed. 194
• Parties: KENNEDY v. BRENT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

10 U.S. 187

6 Cranch 187

3 L.Ed. 194

KENNEDY v. BRENT.

February Term, 1810

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action on the case by Kennedy against Brent, marshal of the district of

Columbia, for the neglect of his deputy in not serving a subpoena in chancery, commonly called a chancery attachment, in due time, whereby the plaintiff lost his debt.

The declaration stated that one Johnston, who did not reside in the district of Columbia, was indebted to the plaintiff, a resident of Alexandria in that district, and that one Hampson was indebted to Johnston; that in order to subject the money in Hampson's hands to the payment of the debt due from Johnston, the plaintiff, on the 13th of December, 1804, filed his bill in chancery in the circuit court of the district for the county of Alexandria, and caused to be issued a subpoena in chancery against Johnston and Hampson to answer the bill, which subpoena was then and there delivered to the defendant's deputy to be executed: and was prosecuted with an intention that the debt due from Hampson to Johnston would be subjected to the payment of the debt due from Johnston to the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the defendant, by his said deputy, not regarding his office of marshal in the true execution thereof, but contriving and fraudulently intending to hinder the plaintiff of his proper remedy for the recovery of his debt aforesaid, did not serve the said subpoena in chancery upon the said Hampson within a reasonable time after receiving the same to be executed as aforesaid, but neglected to serve the said process, without any reasonable cause for so doing, for a long time, to wit, for the space of four months and upwards, by means of which said neglect the said defendant altogether lost the effect of his said suit in chancery against the said Johnston and Hampson as aforesaid, wherefore the plaintiff saith he is injured, and hath sustained damage, &c.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a verdict, by consent, was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon a case agreed, which stated that on the 13th of December, 1804, the plaintiff filed his bill in chancery against Johnston and Hampson in the common form of a bill for a chancery attachment in Virginia. And that the clerk of the court, at the instance of the plaintiff, issued a process commonly

called a chancery attachment, being a subpoena in the common form to answer a bill in...