Thompson v. . Blanchard
New York Court of Appeals
S. Stevens, for the respondent, Thompson, moved to dismiss the appeal, on the' ground that there was no valid undertaking. Three sureties had executed an instrument under § 335 of the code, without seals, as follows: “ In Supreme Court. Isaac W, Thompson v. Leonard Blanchard, impleaded with Russell C. Wheeler.
Read the full summary
S. Stevens, for the respondent, Thompson, moved to dismiss the appeal, on the' ground that there was no valid undertaking. Three sureties had executed an instrument under § 335 of the code, without seals, as follows: “ In Supreme Court. Isaac W, Thompson v. Leonard Blanchard, impleaded with Russell C. Wheeler. Whereas the above named Leonard Blanchard has appealed to the court of appeals from the judgment in this court entered against him and in favor of the above named plaintiff for $930 damages besides costs, which costs do not exceed the sum of $200, making in all $1130: Now therefore we…
1Opinion of the CourtGardiner, J.
The undertaking of the appellant in this case was drawn with reference to, and is in precise conformity with the requirements of § 335 of the code. In this we all agree It is a necessary implication from the statute, that an undertaking thus executed' shall be effectual to sustain an appeal and an action in behalf of the appellee, if the judgment appealed should be affirmed in whole or in part. The legislature, however, have not left the matter to implication. They have enacted that “ when an appeal shall be perfected as provided by the 335th section, it shall stay all proceedings in the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Strobe v. Netherland Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Russell v. BooksNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Post v. . DoremusNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- State v. PaxtonNebraska Supreme Court · 1902
- Fry v. P. Bannon Sewer Pipe Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.