Ex parte Van Hoesen

New York Supreme Court

Ex parte Van Hoesen

4 Cow. 505

DecidedAugust 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Cow. 505 (Ex parte Van Hoesen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Van Hoesen, 4 Cow. 505 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodworth, J.

said, the statute speaks of a bond; but whether this be executed in person or by attorney, it is the same thing. Indeed, there are many cases where the party cannot execute in person, as in case of sickness or necessary absence ; and the statute would never impose the strictness contended for, without excepting such cases. Yet there is no exception. Requiring the party to execute the bond in person, would in various cases, work an absolute deprivation of right. It is enough, that the bond was, in point of fact, valid in its creation. To be sure, it was reasonablé in the Court below, to require that the authority should be filed. ■ On its production, and being proved, they might have compelled the party to file it, as one of the papers relating to the motion before them. They should have done so, and retained the cause. It was afterwards filed, and still remains on file. The statute is clearly satisfied; and the motion should be granted.

Motion granted.

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

Woodworth, J.

said, the statute speaks of a bond; but whether this be executed in person or by attorney, it is the same thing. Indeed, there are many cases where the party cannot execute in person, as in case of sickness or necessary absence ; and the statute would never impose the strictness contended for, without excepting such cases. Yet there is no exception. Requiring the party to execute the bond in person, would in various cases, work an absolute deprivation of right. It is enough, that the bond was, in point of fact, valid in its creation. To be sure, it was reasonablé in the Court below, to require that the authority should be filed. ■ On its production, and being proved, they might have compelled the party to file it, as one of the papers relating to the motion before them. They should have done so, and retained the cause. It was afterwards filed, and still remains on file. The statute is clearly satisfied; and the motion should be granted.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cow. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-van-hoesen-nysupct-1825.