Bishop v. Earl
New York Supreme Court
w Error from the Monroe common pleas. Earl sued Bishop & Medbury on a recognizance of bail, entered into by them in a suit of Earl against one Hotchkiss. The defendants interposed several pleas, upon some of which issues of fad were joined, and upon others, issues of law.
Read the full summary
w Error from the Monroe common pleas. Earl sued Bishop & Medbury on a recognizance of bail, entered into by them in a suit of Earl against one Hotchkiss. The defendants interposed several pleas, upon some of which issues of fad were joined, and upon others, issues of law. In tlieir seventh plea, the defendants stated in substance, that when the ca. sa. in the original suit was delivered to the under-sheriff, the plaintiff, by his attorneys, informed the officer that Hotchkiss was not and would not probably be in the county, in consequence of which the officer took no pains to execute the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
The plea, notice of special matter, and exceptions at the trial, are all avowedly founded on the statute (2 R. S. 304, § 34, 2d ed.) which provides, that in an action against special bail, they [318] may plead “ that directions were given by the plaintiff or his attorney, to prevent the service of the said writs [of fi. fa. or ca. sa.] or either of them; or that any other fraudulent or collusive means were used to prevent such service; and if any such defence be established, it shall entitle the bail to a verdict.”
The notice sets up no fact beyond the plea. That does not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marshall v. HosmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Williams v. WoodardNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fowler v. ColtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843
- McArthur v. PeaseNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Eldridge v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1814