From the chancery court of Carroll county.

Hon. T. B. Graham, Chancellor.

The appellees, D. P. Ricketts, Sr., and Marcus Askew, exhibited this bill, seeking to enjoin the sheriff of Carroll county from levying execution issued upon a final judgment against them as sureties upon a bail bond.

The bill contains the following allegations: That complainants became sureties for the appearance of D. P. Ricketts, Jr., before the circuit court of Grenada county, to answer the state upon a charge of grand larceny; that at the next term of the said court, their principal failing to appeal’, a judgment nisi was entered for the penalty of the bond, but in said judgment it was recited that said defendant and his sureties had bound themselves by a recognizance, instead of a bail bond; that at the next ensuing term said judgment was amended and made to recite that it was rendered upon a bond instead of a recognizance, and judgment final was entered against the complainants for the amount of the penalty. It is further alleged that the judgment was rendered without legal notice to complainants, because the scire facias ordered the said principal and sureties to appear before the judge of said court, at a term thereof to be held at the court-house in the town of Grenada, on the-Monday of January, 1888, etc., and that the failure to state the time when the said court would convene was a fatal omission and rendered the writ void and the judgment thereon likewise illegal; that equity must interfere to prevent the execution on the judgment thus rendered. A copy of the scire facias showing this omission was filed with the bill of complaint.

Injunction was issued as prayed in the bill, and the district attorney, acting in behalf of the state, moved the court to dissolve the injunction and to dismiss the bill, upon the ground, (1) that the chancery court was without jurisdiction, the remedy of law being complete; and (2) because the matters stated in the bill did not warrant an injunction of the execution. The court overruled the motion to dissolve, to which action of the court the defendants excepted, and an appeal has been granted to settle the merits of the controversy.

There is no hint in the bill of any meritorious defense. The theory is simply that, inasmuch as the writ was void, the judgment was rendered without legal notice and equity must interfere to prevent execution. It is admitted that had the writ been properly served nothing would have stood in the way of a judgment. It is not denied that there was a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law by appeal, or treating the judgment as void by a writ of coram nobis with a supersedeas, or by replevy of the personal property levied on. . *

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress