Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Williams and Hodges v. Lyles, 1804 — 6 U.S. 10 · caselaw · US
General
Williams and Hodges v. Lyles
6 U.S. 102 Cranch 10·Supreme Court of the United States·1804
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Williams and Hodges v. Lyles.
Forthcoming bond. — Farianice.
In Virginia, a forthcoming bond which, in reciting the execution, states the costs to be $20, instead of $12, is not thereby vitiated, if the aggregate of debts and costs be truly stated, but will support a judgment, on motion.
This was a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, upon a forthcoming bond, taken under the laws of Virginia.
[MAJORITY]
The execution, upon which the bond was taken, was for “ $143.67, also $12.33, *and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per cwt.” The recital of the execution in the bond stated it to be for “ $143.67, also $20.33, and 355 pounds of tobacco, at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per hundred weight; and marshal’s fees and commissions, and all costs attending the execution of the said writ, $8.11, making in the whole the sum of $171.99.” This aggregate sum was correct, according to the execution, and not according to the recital, there having been a mistake in writing the word twenty for twelve. The court below, considering the recital as correct in substance, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants took a bill of exceptions, and brought their writ of error.
Youngs, for the defendant in error, cited Scott v. Hornsby, 1 Call 42; Bell v. Marr, Ibid. 47 ; Worsham v. Egleston, Ibid. 48 ; and Wilkinson v. McLochlin, Ibid. 49.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.