General
Hodgson & Thompson v. Mountz, Knowles and another
1 D.C. 3661 Cranch 366·United States District Court for the District of Columbia·1806
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
Hodgson & Thompson v. Mountz, Knowles and another.
The mayor of Georgetown may, in that town, do any act which a justice of the peace of the county can do.
A judgment against two, may be superseded by one of the defendants, and the new confession will bind him and his sureties; and the other defendant need not be named in the supersedeas.
The six months’ stay is reckoned from the day of the confession of the new judgment.
The sum confessed need not be repeated and specially set forth in the blank at the end of the supersedeas.
Parol evidence may be given that the confession was made at a place within the jurisdiction of the magistrates before whom it was made.
Upon the return of a ca. sa. issued upon a supersedeas,—
Mr. Morsell and Mr. F. S. Key, for the defendant,
moved the Court to quash the execution. 1. Because the law of Maryland, 1791, c. 67, $ 1, requires that the confession of judgment shall be made before two justices of the peace of the county, but this confession was made before the mayor of Georgetown, and one justice of the peace of the county only. 2. The original judgment was against Jacob Mountz and George Reintzel; and it is superseded by Mountz only. 3. The original judgment is misrecited in the supersedeas, the original judgment being against both and the supersedeas stating that it was a judgment against one. 4. That the six months’ stay is to be reckoned from the day of the original judgment, but the supersedeas reckons it from the day of the date of the supersedeas, that is, the day of confession of the new judgment. 5. That the blank, at the end of the supersedeas, ought to be filled up with the actual sum to be paid. 6. That it does not appear, upon the supersedeas, that the judgment was confessed in Georgetown, so as to be within the jurisdiction of the mayor, and that parol evidence cannot be now given of that fact.
Mr. Jones, for the plaintiff.
[MAJORITY — But the Court,]
But the Court,
after argument, overruled all these objections, and refused to quash the execution.