Howard v. Farley
The Superior Court of New York City
This action was brought by Hester Mary Howard, on a bond made by the defendants Terence Farley and Michael Treacy, in the penalty of seven thousand six hundred dollars, conditioned to pay three thousand eight hundred dollars on the 21st day of May, 1865, with interest payable semi-annually.
Read the full summary
This action was brought by Hester Mary Howard, on a bond made by the defendants Terence Farley and Michael Treacy, in the penalty of seven thousand six hundred dollars, conditioned to pay three thousand eight hundred dollars on the 21st day of May, 1865, with interest payable semi-annually. The complaint alleged that six months’ interest became due on the 21st of Hovember, 1861, and now remained unpaid, whereby the condition of the bond became broken, and the defendants became liable to pay the sum of seven thousand six hundred dollars, for which judgment was demanded. The defendants by their…
1Opinion of the CourtMonell, J.
The only question in this case is, whether the judgment should be for the penalty or the condition of the bond. In debt on bond under the fromer practice, the judgment was for the penalty, but execution could issue only for the sum due by the condition. I think the Code has changed the practice; and that the judgment should no longer be for the penalty, but for the condition. One of the ends aimed at and attained by the codifiers, was the removal of all fiction from pleadings and proceedings in civil actions. Hence, it is required that the complaint shall state the facts constituting the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Western Bank v. SherwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hagood v. BlytheU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1889