About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Reuben Y. Reynolds, Plaintiffs in error, v. Aaron Ross, who sues for the use of Robert Patterson U.S. 173 (1852)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0240 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEM1BER TERM, 1851. 173 Hogan et al. v. Ross. of Ohio, and was argued by counsel. On consideration where- of, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed, by this court4 that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause, be, and the same is hereby affirmed with costs. SMITH HOGAN, ARTHUR S. HOGAN, AND REUBEN Y. REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. AARONg Ross, wHO SUES FOR THE USE OF ROBERT PATTERSON. Where a declaration contained two counts, one of which set omt an injunction-bond with the condition thereto annexed, and averred a breach, and the second count was merely for the debt in the penalty; and the pleas were all applicable to the first count, which was upon trial stricken out by the plaintiff, and the court gave judgment upon the second count for the want of a plea, this judgment was proper, and must be affirmed. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Northern' District of Mis- sissippi. The question was one of pleading and arose in this way: At June term, 1840, of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi, Aaron Ross, a citizen of Pennsylvania, recovered a judgment against George Wight- man and Smith Hogan, for $3,177,05, with interest from the 11th day of December, 1839. Ross issued an execution upon this judgment. On the 30th of September, 1842, when this execution was in the hands of the marshal, Smith Hogan obtained an injunction prohibiting further proceedings under the execution. The signers of the injunction-bond were Smith Hogan, Arthur S. Hogan, and Reuben Y. Reynolds. In November, 1843, in the Circuit Court of the United States, the following entry was made upon tne docket. SMITH HOGAN, ) v. 401. Dismissed by order of complainant's AARON ROSS. 3 solicitors. In Iay, 1845, Ross brought an action upon the injunction- bond, the penalty of which, being double the amount of the judgment, was 6,354.10. The declaration set out the bond and averred, as a breach of the condition, that Hogan had not prose- cuted his writ of injunction to effect, but the samewas dissolved and the bill of the said Smith, by said court, dismissed. To 15*

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most