Brownelow v. Forbes
New York Supreme Court
Woodworth, attorney-general, in behalf of the defendants, moved that the default and judgment entered against the bail in this cause, should be set aside for irregularity, and that an exoneretur. be entered on the bail-piece. The same motion was made at the last term, when the court directed the proceedings to stay, and the application to be renewed at this term.
Read the full summary
Woodworth, attorney-general, in behalf of the defendants, moved that the default and judgment entered against the bail in this cause, should be set aside for irregularity, and that an exoneretur. be entered on the bail-piece. The same motion was made at the last term, when the court directed the proceedings to stay, and the application to be renewed at this term. The capias ad respondendum, issued against the bail, was returnable on the 17th May, the last day of that term ; and on the first day of August, and previous to the commencement of the last term, the principal was duly surrendered by…
1Per curiam
There is no case in which the court have refused to order an exoneretur, where the surrender has been made within the eight days. Such a surrender is a compliance with the condition of the recognizance. By the universality and uniform application of this rule, it has now grown into a matter of right. Technically speaking, it cannot be pleaded, and so it is not de jure. The relief is. on motion, and not by plea, and the court always require the costs in the suit on the recognizance tobe paid, and so far, and no farther, it is ex gratia. We are not to look into the merits of the original suit,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. StevensUnited States Circuit Court · 1883
- Bank of Geneva v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1860