RIDDLE v. BRADUN AND RICE, 3 Del. Cas. 209 (1829)

Ridgely’s Notebook V, 554[*]

High Court of Errors and Appeals of Delaware, Heard.
June 10-12, 1829.

Page 210

[January 7, 1830.]
The High Court of Errors and Appeals held an adjourned session, commencing January 6, 1830. On the 7th of that month THE CHANCELLOR said, with the concurrence of the other judges, that the proceedings in the suit of Bradun and Rice v. Riddle, upon which the writ of error has been brought, appear from the record to be so irregular that the Court cannot, safely to themselves, come to any conclusion. The record is also defective. The bill of particulars filed in the suit o Bradun and Rice v. Bauduy is not sent up. A reference to that bill might, perhaps, help to explain the record. In the suit against Riddle a release, in general terms, was pleaded. The record does not show what that release was. Such release might exist or not. As it appears to this Court the plaintiff should have demurred and left the question of law only to be determined. Altogether, the Court does not think proper to decide questions which do not clearly and satisfactorily appear on the record. We therefore recommend to the parties to take this case back to the Supreme Court, to plead de novo, and again to try the cause. This may be done with the aid of the Supreme Court in expunging the old proceedings subsequent to the declaration, or, indeed, by making the whole proceedings, pleadings and trial de novo. If this proposition is not agreed to, we will continue the cause to the next term and decide it as well as we can.

(The proposition was not agreed to; so the cause is continued to the next term, to be decided upon the record returned to this Court, as it now stands.)