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

6 Wend. 543
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 23, 1831·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

6 Wend. 543 (People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)