WILLIAMS AND HODGES
v.
LYLES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A bond was executed for $143.67, $12.33, and 355 pounds of tobacco, but the bond's recital mistakenly stated $20.33 instead of $12.33, though the final aggregate sum was correctly calculated according to the original execution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the recital should be considered correct in substance despite the clerical error in one of the component figures.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The execution, upon which the bond was taken, was for “ $143.67, also $12.33, *and 355 pounds of tobacco at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per cwt.” The recital of the execution in the bond stated it to be for “ $143.67, also $20.33, and 355 pounds of tobacco, at the rate of 13 shillings and four pence per hundred weight; and marshal’s fees and commissions, and all costs attending the execution of the said writ, $8.11, making in the whole the sum of $171.99.” This aggregate sum was correct, according to the execution, and not according to the recital, there having been a mistake in writing the word twenty for twelve. The court below, considering the recital as correct in substance, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants took a bill of exceptions, and brought their writ of error. Youngs, for the defendant in error, cited Scott v. Hornsby, 1 Call 42; Bell v. Marr, Ibid. 47 ; Worsham v. Egleston, Ibid. 48 ; and Wilkinson v. McLochlin, Ibid. 49.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolyn B. Barclay v. Russ, 14 Fla. 372 (Fla. 1874)
-
Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229 (U.S. 1868)