Difference between revisions of ".MzUzOTY.MTIyODMy"
m (Protected ".MzUzOTY.MTIyODMy" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 13:22, 30 March 2021
to be relieved from their liability - your respondents refer to this fact for the purpose of sustaining their portion that this is not good as an official bond, there being no such "agent" as that referred to in the bond + other proceedings in this case- Your respondents also insist that the supposed bond is not obligatory so far as they are concerned as a common law bond- The paper purports to be an official bond to the Court & not to the justices as individuals - If your respondents bound themselves at all they did so as sureties for an office of the Court , subject to all the requirements of the law in regard to the oath of office + other matters intended to ensure his fidelity & responsibility - Your respondents contend therefore that the character of their obligation cannot be changed , so as to make them responsible for the acts of a private individual to other private individuals- To do so would be to change the whole tenor and effect of their obligation & to bind them for one thing, where it is plain from the face of the papers, that they intended to bind themselves for another & wholly different thing- Your respondents therefore pray that so far as they are concerned the bill of the complainants may be dismissed & that they may recover their costs against the complainants & are is duty bound they will ever pray &c
Alex H H Stuart for Defts
Corporation of Staunton Sc That day D S Young one of the parties to the above answer made oath before me Mayor of Corporation aforesaid that he believes the statement of fact therein contained to be true - Given under my hand this 13th Jany 1854
W [Trent?] Mayor