Van Wezel v. Van Wezel
New York Court of Chancery
This was a motion to dismiss the appeal entered in this cause for irregularity. The appeal was also heard on its merits, at the same time.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The appellant has shown that the surety who signed the appeal bond in this case is actually in existence, although it is not alleged that he is responsible for a single dollar. But the appeal was not regularly entered, because, by law, there should have been two or more sureties in the appeal bond. The statute requires a deposit of money on the appeal, or a bond with sureties, in the plural. (2 R. S. 605, § 80.) Although the number is not specified in this part of the statute, it requires two to constitute sureties. And the corresponding provision relative to security for costs…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Matter of Watson v. . NelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- People ex rel. Hawley v. BennettNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Moran v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Harris v. J. Regester & SonsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.