Sneed v. Wister

Decision Date14 March 1823
Citation8 Wheat. 690,5 L.Ed. 717,21 U.S. 690
PartiesSNEED and others, Plaintiffs in Error , v. WISTER and others, Defendants in Error
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

appear. And, further, that the said judgment, rendered by the said Franklin Circuit Court, was for 1895 dollars 13 1/2 cents damages, and _____ dollars costs, as would appear by the records of the said Court. The declaration then avers, that the said A. Sneed hath not paid to the said plaintiffs the said damages and costs aforesaid, or either of them, whereby action accrued.

To this declaration, the defendants, after demanding oyer of the bond, and condition thereof, in the declaration mentioned, and also of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, therein proffered, pleads in bar of the action: 1. That by the judgment and mandate of the said Court of Appeals, the said cause was remanded to the Circuit Court of Franklin, where the judgment of the said Court of Appeals, according to the mandate, was entered up as the judgment of the said Court of Franklin; and that after the said judgment was so entered, viz. on the 19th of August, 1820, in the clerk's office of the said Court, the said A. Sneed, according to the laws of Kentucky, did replevy the said sum in the declaration mentioned, by acknowledging recognisances, called replevin bonds, before the said clerk, together with Landon Sneed, his surety in said recognisances for the said sums of money, damages and costs, in the declaration mentioned, to be paid in one year from the date thereof; the said clerk having lawful authority to take said replevin bonds, having by law the force of judgments, and then remaining in the said Court in full force, not quashed, &c. 2. The second plea is nil debet. To these pleas the plaintiffs demurred, and assigned for cause of demurrer, to the first, that it contains a prayer of oyer of records, of which profert was not made, and of which the defendants had no right to oyer; and further, that the said plea is defective, in not setting forth where the replevin bond pleaded was executed, that the Court might judge whether there was any authority to take it.

The demurrers being joined, the Court below gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, and awarded a writ of inquiry to assess the damages to which they were entitled. On this inquiry, the defendants' counsel moved the Court to instruct the jury, 1. That the damages of 10 per cent. on affirmance, cannot be given, because not within the breaches assigned; and, 2. That they ought not to allow interest on the damages in the original judgment, for any period before affirmance.

These instructions the Court refused to give; but did, upon the motion of the counsel for the plaintiffs, instruct the jury, that the act of Assembly of Kentucky, of the 7th of February, 1812, 'giving...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Linington v. Strong
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1880
    ...on a bond, cited 1 Chitty's Pl. 482; Davis v. Burton, 3 Scam. 41; King v. Ramsey, 13 Ill. 619; Mix v. The People, 86 Ill. 329; Sneed v. Wister, 8 Wheat. 690. Defendant, by pleading non est factum, had estopped himself from questioning the declaration by carrying a demurrer back to it: Wear ......
  • Cornelia A. White v. Edward J. Hall
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1916
    ... ... record but could have been put to plead "there was no ... such record." Story v. Kimball, 6 Vt ... 541; Sneed v. Wister, 8 Wheat. 690, 5 L.Ed ... 717; 1 Chit. Pl. (13th ed.) 431 ...           [91 ... Vt. 62] County court rule 15, § 2, does not ... ...
  • White v. Hall
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1916
    ...to demand oyer of the record, but could have been put to plead, "There was no such record." Story v. Kimball, 6 Vt. 541; Sneed v. Wister, 8 Wheat. COO, 5 L. Ed. 717; 1 Chit. Pl. (13th Ed.) County Court Rule 15, § 2, does not enlarge the right to demand oyer. Defendant could not bring the re......
  • William Bevins and Oliver Earle, Surviving Partners of the Firm of Bevins, Earle Co Assignees Who Sue For the Use of Oliver Earle, Plaintiffs In Error v. William Ramsey, Robert Craighead, James Craighead, Thomas Humes, and James Millan, Administrator of Andrew Millan, Deceased
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1853
    ...language. 7. The plea of nil debet is clearly had in reply to breaches assigned on a bond with collateral condition. Sneed v. Wister, 8 Wheat. 690. 10. The fourth plea contains no answer to the declaration in substance; and what it does contain is badly pleaded. The gravamen of the action i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT