Legal Opinion

Milanese v. Surety

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1933Published

1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.

The defendant voluntarily returned to the jail limits before the action was commenced against the sheriff or surety by service upon them. This constituted a defense to the action which inured to the benefit of the surety. (Correction Law, §§ 528, 550; Carruth v. Church, 6 Barb. 504; Visscher v. Gansevoort, 18 Johns. 496; Van Hoesen v. Holley, 9 Wend. 209; Andrews v. Hart, N. Y. L. J. June 12,1918, Donnelly, J.; Strauss v. National Surety Co., Id. Dec. 4, 1931, Wasservogel, J.) In any event the prisoner’s voluntary return to the jail limits on February 10, 1932, was prevented by plaintiff,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Richtmeyer v. . RemsenNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  2. Visscher v. GansevoortNew York Supreme Court · 1821
  3. Drake v. ChesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
  4. Van Hoesen v. HolleyNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  5. Carruth v. ChurchNew York Supreme Court · 1849

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API