Van Slyck v. Hogeboom
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt¡ for the escape of one Abrahain A. Van Alstyne, after judgment against him, in this court, and after he had been surrendered by his bail, but before he had been charged in execution by a ca. sa. The declaration was in debt, for the amount of the judgment.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt¡ for the escape of one Abrahain A. Van Alstyne, after judgment against him, in this court, and after he had been surrendered by his bail, but before he had been charged in execution by a ca. sa. The declaration was in debt, for the amount of the judgment. Previous to the surrender, a ca. sa. had been1 issued on the judgment, and returned non est inventus The cause was tried at the Columbia circuit, in December 1809. The judgment, the surrender, and the escape, being proved, the defendant was permitted to show the insolvency of Van Alstyne, to diminish the amount of…
1Per curiam
The action here was misconceived. Unprisoner is in execution; (Laws, vol. 1. sess. 24. c. 28. s. 18. p. 212.) and under our law, a prisoner is not in execution, until a writ of execution against the body has been issued and delivered to the sheriff» We have never adopted the English practice of charging the defendant in execution, without the issuing of a ca. sa. (1 Salk. 272. Watson v. Sutton, 2 Burr. 1050.) The provision in the statute (Laws, vol. 1. sess. 24. c. 66. s. 13. p. 266.) requiring a prisoner to be charged in execution, within three months next after a surrender of his bail,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Callanan v. ShawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Ex parte BailyNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Allen v. BluntU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1846
- Metcalf v. StrykerNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Nolan v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1876
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.