Kesler v. Haynes

New York Supreme Court

Kesler v. Haynes

6 Wend. 547

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 4, 1831

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 Wend. 547 (Kesler v. Haynes) 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

Kesler v. Haynes, 6 Wend. 547 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court

Savage, Ch. J.

It was the duty of the clerk to have entered the appearance of the defendants on the writ being returned. 2 R. S. 528, § 34. The defendants cannot avail themselves of his omission ; nor can they object that the sheriff accepted a bond with but one surety. The statute, 2 R. S. 523, § 7, requires a bond with sufficient sureties to be approved by the sheriff, to be executed before the service of a writ of replevin. If he omits to" take" sufficient surety, he is responsible, but the proceedings are not irregular.

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

By the Court

Savage, Ch. J.

It was the duty of the clerk to have entered the appearance of the defendants on the writ being returned. 2 R. S. 528, § 34. The defendants cannot avail themselves of his omission ; nor can they object that the sheriff accepted a bond with but one surety. The statute, 2 R. S. 523, § 7, requires a bond with sufficient sureties to be approved by the sheriff, to be executed before the service of a writ of replevin. If he omits to" take" sufficient surety, he is responsible, but the proceedings are not irregular.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Wend. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kesler-v-haynes-nysupct-1831.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack