People v. Backman
New York Supreme Court
Motion by defendants to set aside declaration and subsequent proceedings for irregularity.—Backman and Miner, the defendants, entered into a recognizance, as bail for one Allen, at the Schenectady general sessions in March last. Subsequently the district attorney of Schenectady commenced an action of debt, in this court, against the defendants, as bail on their recognizance; both defendants residing, and having for many years resided in Schenectady county.
1Opinion of the Court
It was insisted on the part of defendants, that the action of debt against bail must be brought in the same court in which the original suit was commenced, unless the bail, or one of them, resides out of the county; in which case they may be sued in this court, although the original suit was in the court of common pleas. 9 Johns. Rep., 80; 7 do, 318; and that the defendants’ remedy was by motion, 13 Wend., 33; 1 Hill, 604; 3 Hill, 558; 13 Johns., 424. That the common pleas have equity powers in the matter of recognizances given to them by statute, 2 R. S., p. 399, § 37, which do not belong to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. Van EpsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- People v. BlankmanNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Burtus v. M'CartyNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- People v. HaddockNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Matthews v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1834