Mumford v. Armstrong
4 Cow. 553
Opinion
In the Bank of Orange v. Wakeman, (1 Cowen’s Rep. 46,) we held that the sheriff’s taking a promissory note for the money upon ajñ. fa. in his hands would not operate as payment, even though he returned the exe[554]*554cution satisfied. The draft, in this instance, not being a payment, the act of permitting the defendant to go at large was a voluntary escape, and the plaintiff clearly had a tight to issue another ca. sa. and proceed to the second arrest.
Motion denied.
See 1 R. L. 426, s. 24. 8 John. Rep. 361.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mumford v. Armstrong, 4 Cow. 553 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).
4 Cow. 553 (Mumford v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Board of County Commissioners v. Colorado Springs Co.
15 Colo. App. 274 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1900)
Moore v. Auditor General
81 N.W. 561 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Kershaw v. Dyer
6 Utah 239 (Utah Supreme Court, 1889)
City of Lansing v. Wood
23 N.W. 769 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)
Harris, Norton & Co. v. Ellis
30 Tex. 4 (Texas Supreme Court, 1867)
Ginochio v. Figari
2 Abb. Pr. 185 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1855)
Dougherty v. Hughes
3 Greene 92 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1851)
Randolph v. Ringgold
5 Ark. 279 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1850)
Campbell v. Clark
2 How. Pr. 257 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)