Kinnie v. Whitford
17 Johns. 34
Opinion
In a qui tam action, the statute (1 N. R. L, 143. sess. 24. ch. 25. s. 2. 2 R. S. 595, 596. sec. 26, &c.) does not require that bail to a writ of error should be put in, in order to make it a supersedeas. But in this case the execution had issued, and was actually levied on the property of the defendant, before the writ of error was filed; and the writ of error was, therefore, no supersedeas. This W'as so decided in Blanchard v. Myers, (9 Johns. Rep. 66.)
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kinnie v. Whitford, 17 Johns. 34 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).
17 Johns. 34 (Kinnie v. Whitford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matteson v. Ellsworth
33 Wis. 488 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1873)
North Western Express Co. v. Landes
6 Minn. 564 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Smith v. Allen
2 E.D. Smith 259 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1854)
Payfer v. Bissell
3 Hill & Den. 239 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)