Snowden Assignee versus Hemming.
In an action of debt upon a bond, judgment being obtained, and execution issued, Wilcocks moved to stay proceedings upon this ground; that, though the bond was dated in June, the consideration, for which it was given, arose before the 1st of March 1781; and therefore, he contended, that his client was within the protection of the Act of Assembly passed the 27th of December 1784, which entitles a defendant to a stay of execution, for a certain time, upon tendering the interest and costs to the sheriff.
Bradford, for the plaintiff, was prepared with an affidavit to controvert the facts advanced in support of the motion; but he forbore reading it, and insisted that the Court could not travel into a consideration of the transactions for which the bond was given.
By the Court:—It would occasion infinite trouble and consusion were the defendant’s doctrine to be admitted, and it is impossible to say where the mischief would end. It is true, that before a jury, proof may be made of the consideration, and of the time of delivering a bond; but this Act of Assembly which, in particular cases, grants a delay of execution to the defendant, upon the tender of the interest and costs, must, surely, at the same time, recognize the written instrument as conclusive evidence of the contract; and we can enquire no father.