People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P.
New York Supreme Court
Motion for mandamus. The common pleas of Rensselaer dismissed an appeal from a justice’s judgment, because the commissioner who allowed the same had not added the Hile of his office to his signature, attached to the jural of the affidavit and to the allocatur of the appeal. In opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal,it was shewn that the commissioner was a judge of the common pleas of Rensselaer county, of the degree of counsel in this court.
Read the full summary
Motion for mandamus. The common pleas of Rensselaer dismissed an appeal from a justice’s judgment, because the commissioner who allowed the same had not added the Hile of his office to his signature, attached to the jural of the affidavit and to the allocatur of the appeal. In opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal,it was shewn that the commissioner was a judge of the common pleas of Rensselaer county, of the degree of counsel in this court. The relators, (the appellants,) now moved for a mandamus to vacate the rule dismissing the appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
It is not necessary that an officer, taking an affidavit or allowing an appeal, should add to his signature the title of his office. The appeal having been allowed by one of the judges of the common pleas, that court must have been able from inspection to determine that it was allowed by a proper officer; and, in addition, it was expressly shewn by affidavit that it was properly allowed. The error of the court, therefore, must have been in requiring the title of the officer to be added to his signature. This is not necessary. Let an alternative mandamus issue.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jackman v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Thompson v. GloverCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
- Sage v. StaffordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Hudson v. FishelSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1890