Miles v. Clarke
The Superior Court of New York City
An order was made under section 179 of the Code, by which the Sheriff was required to arrest the defendant, and hold him to bail. On being arrested, he executed an undertaking, with two sureties, in the prescribed form. The sureties were excepted to, and notice was given that they would justify. They appeared at the time and place named, and were examined. From their examination, it appeared that they were practising attorneys and counsellors of the court.
Read the full summary
An order was made under section 179 of the Code, by which the Sheriff was required to arrest the defendant, and hold him to bail. On being arrested, he executed an undertaking, with two sureties, in the prescribed form. The sureties were excepted to, and notice was given that they would justify. They appeared at the time and place named, and were examined. From their examination, it appeared that they were practising attorneys and counsellors of the court. Thereupon the plaintiffs’ counsel insisted, that they should be rejected on that ground. The question, whether attorneys were disqualified…
1Opinion of the CourtMoncrief, J.
The defendant, having been arrested under one of the subdivisions' of § 179 of the Code, tenders an undertaking under § 187. Upon an examination of the sureties, it appears that they are practising attornies and counsellors of this Court.
*710The counsel for the plaintiffs objects to them as disqualified and incompetent on that ground, and (citing 7 Abb. 73; 15 Johns. 535) contends that the bail should be rejected. The note under § 187 of the Code cites authorities as decisive on the point.
Upon a careful examination of all the authorities, it will be found that the practice arose from the rule of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baker v. AshleyNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Coster v. WatsonNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- Miles v. ClarkeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859