Nichols v. Sutfin
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff’s attorney in the original cause, having received notice from the attorney of Sutton, the defendant, that Stufin, the defendant in this suit, had become special bail, proceeded to judgment against the principal; and afterwards against the bail. The judgment against the latter was perfected in May term last; and a fi. fa. issued and 1 J 1 J J levied. The capias ad respondendum, in the last suit, was returnable on the last return day of February term.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff’s attorney in the original cause, having received notice from the attorney of Sutton, the defendant, that Stufin, the defendant in this suit, had become special bail, proceeded to judgment against the principal; and afterwards against the bail. The judgment against the latter was perfected in May term last; and a fi. fa. issued and 1 J 1 J J levied. The capias ad respondendum, in the last suit, was returnable on the last return day of February term. Intermediate this and May term, the bail made diligent search in the various clerk’s offices of this court for the bail piece, with…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The proceedings on the part.of the plaintiff are regular. He had a right to rely on the notice of bail; and go on as if the bail piece had been actually filed. Let it now be filed nunc pro tunc.
But, as the defendant has, in fact, been prevented from surrendering, by the mistake in omitting to file the bail piece, he may now surrender within 30 days, and have his exoneretur entered on payment of the costs of the suit against him, and of this motion. [1]
Rule accordingly.
Under the New York Code, the -bail to be given by a defendant, is a written undertaking, executed by two or more…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Low v. GraydonNew York Supreme Court · 1862