Murdock v. Thornton

Decided April 15, 1733

General Court of Virginia · decided 1733-04-15

(Pl’t below) It was also insisted that the Entry of the Committitur was only Form and that the Clerk should do it of course without prayer That in England it was the meer Act of the Attorney who enter’d it upon the Roll For the Appellee it was answered such practices would be inconvenient for thereby the Pl’t would be forced to take Execution against the body when perhaps he had rather have it against the Estate.

Decided 1733-04-15

¶1The question in this case was whether a man confessing Judgment in custody is in Execution without prayer of the Pl’t. The case of Diggs and Fleming in this Court (•) was insisted on which was, One [sic] confessed judgment in -Custody and was discharged by the County Court upon the Act for relief of Insolvent Debtors The Act speaks only of persons in Execution So unless he was in Execution the County Court had no Power to discharge him But Adjudged the Court had Power to discharge him and consequently that he was in Execution.

¶2Por this point see Comb. 329. that after two Terms upon filing Comon bail the def. is discharged.

Oct’r 20. 1733. Philip Lightfoot Esq. was sworn one of the Council in the General Court and a Judge of the said Court

Oct’r 25. Thomas Lee Esq. was likewise sworn.

¶3Vide this Pase J. K. Arguments. 73.