Crowley v. Conner

1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 162
CourtNew York Marine Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1877
StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 162 (Crowley v. Conner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Marine Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crowley v. Conner, 1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 162 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1877).

Opinion

That it cannot be proved by a certified copy of such appointment, nor by evidence that the deputy acted as [163]*163such. That the theory of the sheriff’s liability rests in the doctrine of principal and agent.

The plaintiff was allowed, on terms, to withdraw a juror, and the case went over the term to enable the plaintiff to procure the statutory proof .

This ruling is upon the ground that the statute requires that “every appointment of an under-sheriff or a deputy sheriff shall be in writing, under the hand and seal of the sheriff, and shall be filed and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county (1 R. S. 379, § 74, 4 ed. 697, § 131; 1 Id. 6 ed. 906, § 234). The original appointment must be produced from the files, because there is no statute making a certified copy thereof evidence (37 Barb. 67).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Curtis v. Fay
37 Barb. 64 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-conner-nymarct-1877.