Atkinson v. Prine
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to Camden Circuit Court. The defendants above named became sureties on a bail-bond given to the sheriff of Camden county by one Horace Ham-mill, who had been arrested upon a capias ad respondendum issued out of the Camden Circuit Court, at the suit of Atkinson, in an action of assumpsit. Hammill did not appear, according to the condition of the bail-bond, by putting in special bail. Atkinson took an assignment of the bail-bond and brought suit-upon it.
Read the full summary
On error to Camden Circuit Court. The defendants above named became sureties on a bail-bond given to the sheriff of Camden county by one Horace Ham-mill, who had been arrested upon a capias ad respondendum issued out of the Camden Circuit Court, at the suit of Atkinson, in an action of assumpsit. Hammill did not appear, according to the condition of the bail-bond, by putting in special bail. Atkinson took an assignment of the bail-bond and brought suit-upon it. On application of the defendants in error as sureties on tho bond, the Circuit Court, on the 5th of October, 1882, made an order…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Depue, J.
The jurisdiction of the court to make such an order as that under review is given by section 94 of the Practice act,, which provides that if special bail be not put in and perfected in *30due time, the plaintiff, after an assignment of the bail-bond, may bring an action upon the bond in his own name, and that the court in which the action is brought may, by rule of court, give such relief to the plaintiff and defendant in the original action, and to the bail upon the bail-bond, as is agreeable to justice and reason ; and such rule shall have the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Yancey v. LoweNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957