Russell v. Champion
New York Supreme Court
Motion for exoneretur. M. T. Reynolds moved for an ex-oneretur to be entered on the bail piece, on the ground that the judgment in this case being founded upon contract, the defendant is not liable to be arrested or imprisoned, since the passage of the act abolishing imprisonment for debt, Laws of 1831 ¡page 396 5 and he insisted that in conformity to the settled practice of the court, ordering an exoneretur when it is shewn that a party is not subjected to arrest, as where…
Read the full summary
Motion for exoneretur. M. T. Reynolds moved for an ex-oneretur to be entered on the bail piece, on the ground that the judgment in this case being founded upon contract, the defendant is not liable to be arrested or imprisoned, since the passage of the act abolishing imprisonment for debt, Laws of 1831 ¡page 396 5 and he insisted that in conformity to the settled practice of the court, ordering an exoneretur when it is shewn that a party is not subjected to arrest, as where he has obtained a discharge as an insolvent debtor, the motion ought to prevail. contended that as by the act of 1831,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
It being shewn that the judgment in this caséis founded upon contresA, prima facie the defendant cannot be arrested. Besides, the plaintiffs have had notice of this motion, and have not shewn that the defendant is subject to arrest within the provisions of the act of 1831. There cannot, therefore, be any reason for refusing the exoneretur, to which the bail might at any moment entitle themselves by surrendering the defendant, or to which the defendant might entitle them by surrendering himself in discharge of his bail. Whenever it is shewn that a defendant is not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Aiken v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
- White v. BlakeNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Norman v. MancietteU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1871