People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P.

6 Wend. 543
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJune 23, 1831
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Wend. 543 (People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P.) 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
People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P., 6 Wend. 543 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

It is not necessary that an officer, taking an affidavit or allowing an appeal, should add to his signature the title of his office. The appeal having been allowed by one of the judges of the common pleas, that court must have been able from inspection to determine that it was allowed by a proper officer; and, in addition, it was expressly shewn by affidavit that it was properly allowed. The error of the court, therefore, must have been in requiring the title of the officer to be added to his signature. This is not necessary. Let an alternative mandamus issue.

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

Related

Sage v. Stafford
42 A.D. 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Hudson v. Fishel
20 A. 100 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1890)
Jackman v. City of Gloucester
9 N.E. 740 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Thompson v. Glover
78 Ky. 193 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Wend. 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-churchill-v-rensselaer-c-p-nysupct-1831.