Ten Eick v. Simpson
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application by J. Simpson, one of the defendants, to dismiss the complainant’s appeal, upon the ground of irregularity. One irregularity complained of was, that the notices of appeal, which were filed and served, were wrongly entitled.
Read the full summary
This was an application by J. Simpson, one of the defendants, to dismiss the complainant’s appeal, upon the ground of irregularity. One irregularity complained of was, that the notices of appeal, which were filed and served, were wrongly entitled. The decree was upon a bill filed by the appellant, against J. Simpson and W. Simpson, for the specific performance of a contract, made by the latter, for the conveyance of a lot of land to the complainant, which lot of land was subsequently conveyed to J. Simpson, the other defendant, with notice of the complainant’s rights. The assistant vice…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The notice of the appeal served upon the respondent was undoubtedly irregular, as it was not only wrongly entitled but was also served several days before any appeal whatever had been entered with the clerk of the court; so that if the respondent had searched the office to see if the appeal bond itself was given in the wrong suit, he would not have found an appeal bond in any cause. The affidavit of justification of the sureties was also technically defective, in not stating that they were freeholders in this state, as well as residents therein; or that they were householders;…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Matter of RyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- State ex rel. Cook v. HouserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Carr v. DuhmeIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Moses v. JulianSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1863
- Tampa Street Railway & Power Co. v. Tampa Suburban RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.