¶1The matter in dispute, in this case, appears by the record, to be the penalty of the bond, the declaration containing no breach, showing that a smaller sum was claimed, as was the case of the United States v. M’Dowell [supra]. If the verdict had been for a smaller sum than $50, that would have been the matter in dispute, and this court could not have entertained the writ of error. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, there being no breaches assigned in the dec*1097laration or replication; and also because the verdict does not respond to the plea or payment, but states matteis irrelevant to that issue; but which, I presume, were subjects of discussion at the trial. If these be the grounds of defence, they must be presented to the court by proper pleadings.
19 F. Cas. 1096
Postmaster General v. Cross
U.S. District Court
Decided October 15, 1822
U.S. District Court · decided 1822-10-15
This was a writ of error from the district court, in an action of debt by the plaintiff in error, against the defendants [Cross and Wonder], as sureties of-, a deputy postmaster, on his official bond, for $1000, penalty. Plea, non est factum and payment.
Decided 1822-10-15