PHILLIPS v. HYDE, 1 U.S. 439 (1789)

U.S. Supreme Court

PHILLIPS v. HYDE, 1 U.S. 439 (1789)

1 U.S. 439 (Dall.)

Phillips
v.
Hyde

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

June Term, 1789

Debt upon a Replevin bond, after judgment de returns habends in the Replevin, and thereupon a return of Elongatur.

Sergeant, on the trial of the cause, offered witnesses to prove, that the goods had been tendered to the Plaintiff, and, therefore, that the condition of the Replevin bond had been performed.

Levy opposed the admission of this testimony, and contended that no evidence could be received to contradict the Sheriff's return. See 12 Mod. 424. T. Raym. 485. 7. 2 Mod. 10. 11. Cro. E. 872. pl. 9.

Sergeant, in reply, admitted, that some returns of the sheriff could not be traversed; but, he contended, that the return of Elongatur was not of that class. See 12 Mod. 426.

The Court over-ruled the evidence.

A question then arose, Whether the Jury could include the costs which had accrued on the Replevin, in their verdict in the present action. And the Court were clearly of opinion, that they could, and ought to do so. *

Conformably to which was the verdict of the Jury.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] Sergeant having suggested, that both the points in this case, had been otherwise determined in a case of Jackson v. Webb; Mr. President Shippen said, that the matter was there left upon equitable circumstances to the Court.[ Phillips v. Hyde

Footnote 1 U.S. 439 (1789) ]




U.S. Supreme Court

PHILLIPS v. HYDE, 1 U.S. 439 (1789)

1 U.S. 439 (Dall.)

Phillips
v.
Hyde

Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

June Term, 1789

Debt upon a Replevin bond, after judgment de returns habends in the Replevin, and thereupon a return of Elongatur.

Sergeant, on the trial of the cause, offered witnesses to prove, that the goods had been tendered to the Plaintiff, and, therefore, that the condition of the Replevin bond had been performed.

Levy opposed the admission of this testimony, and contended that no evidence could be received to contradict the Sheriff's return. See 12 Mod. 424. T. Raym. 485. 7. 2 Mod. 10. 11. Cro. E. 872. pl. 9.

Sergeant, in reply, admitted, that some returns of the sheriff could not be traversed; but, he contended, that the return of Elongatur was not of that class. See 12 Mod. 426.

The Court over-ruled the evidence.

A question then arose, Whether the Jury could include the costs which had accrued on the Replevin, in their verdict in the present action. And the Court were clearly of opinion, that they could, and ought to do so. *

Conformably to which was the verdict of the Jury.

Footnotes

[Footnote *] Sergeant having suggested, that both the points in this case, had been otherwise determined in a case of Jackson v. Webb; Mr. President Shippen said, that the matter was there left upon equitable circumstances to the Court.[ Phillips v. Hyde

Footnote 1 U.S. 439 (1789) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.