Kennedy v. Congle
This text of 14 N.J.L. 82 (Kennedy v. Congle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
I am of the opinion, that the Court of Common Pleas ought to have received the new appeal bond offered in this case. The only objection to it was, that the party appellant did not join in its execution. This would be giving the act too rigid a construction. I see no reason why we may not apply the same rule to appeal bonds, that we apply to certiorari bonds. The act is non imperative, but directory. A party against whom a judgment has been obtained, may be prevented by sickness or some other lawful cause from attending at the court to prosecute his appeal, and if no other bond than the one executed by himself, and which may turn out to be defective, will answer the requirement of the statute, he is virtually deprived of his right of appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 N.J.L. 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-congle-nj-1833.