Van Antwerp v. Newman
New York Supreme Court
J. .L’Amoureux, for the plaintiff, moved for leave to take out execution in this cause, notwithstanding the writ of error brought by the defendant, upon the judgment of this Court for the plaintiff. [Vid. 2 Cowen’s Rep. 543, S. C.] The security given to stay execution was in this form: « Know all men by these presents that we, Lewis Newman, John Nelliger and John Hinckley, are held and firmly bound unto Cornelius "Yan Antwerp, Esquire, Sheriff of the city and countyof…
Read the full summary
J. .L’Amoureux, for the plaintiff, moved for leave to take out execution in this cause, notwithstanding the writ of error brought by the defendant, upon the judgment of this Court for the plaintiff. [Vid. 2 Cowen’s Rep. 543, S. C.] The security given to stay execution was in this form: « Know all men by these presents that we, Lewis Newman, John Nelliger and John Hinckley, are held and firmly bound unto Cornelius "Yan Antwerp, Esquire, Sheriff of the city and countyof Albahy, in the sum of one- thousand and twenty-three dollars and fifty-two cents, of the money of account of the' United…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The mere delay, in this case is not a sufficient ground for our allowing execution to go.
It is not necessary that a writ of error should be allowed by a Judge. It is a writ of right; and the proper officer is bound to issue it, of course, on the application of the party. The English books speak much of allowing a writ of error, but this does not mean a judicial act. There the writ is delivered to the Clerk of the Errors, who enters its receipt, whereupon the party takes of him a note or certificate that he has allowed the writ.(c) This is what the books *85mean when they speak of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In re PyeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Clark v. MilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1850
- Rochester v. RobertsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852