Legal Opinion

Ex parte Smith

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1826Published

Smith having been committed to gaol in Columbia, for not performing an order of filiation and maintenance, for a weekly sum of money made pursuant to 1 R. L. 306, sect. 1; and being afterwards discharged under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt,

1Opinion of the Court

Curia.

We think this is a case within the meaning of the act. The order imposes a mere civil obligation, for which an action would lie. It is in the nature of a judgment for so much, payable by weekly instalments. (Walworth v. Mead, 9 John. Rep. 368.) Another effect of the order is, to impose on the putative father the obligation of giving surety to perform it, if he has neglected'the actual performance. For default of both, he is imprisoned. He is in execution for not performing one of two things, both of which arc, in their nature, civil obligations ; and both of which were due at the time…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lansing v. PrendergastNew York Supreme Court · 1812

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API