People ex rel. Cooney v. Judges of the Common Pleas

2 How. Pr. 189
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1846·Published

Opinion

Jewett, Justice.

I am of the opinion that the filing of the bond and return to the writ of certiorari, by the justice, was sufficient evidence of his approval of the sufficiency of the sureties (2 Cow. 506). The statute (2 B. S. 256, § 172) does not require the justice to certify orfile his^approval, as it does in the case of an appeal bond. (lb. 259, § 189.) Although it is well that justices should certify their approval in all cases upon such bonds. The order, therefore, óf the common pleas, quashing the certiorari, was erroneous, [191]*191but- -it cannot be corrected by mandamus. (20 Wend. 658.) Motion to vacate the rules, allowing the writs of alternative and peremptory mandamus, and to set aside said writs, granted, but without costs to either oarty.

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

People ex rel. Cooney v. Judges of the Common Pleas, 2 How. Pr. 189 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

2 How. Pr. 189 (People ex rel. Cooney v. Judges of the Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sholts v. Judges of Yates
2 Cow. 506 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)
People ex rel. Doughty v. Judges of Dutchess C. P.
20 Wend. 658 (New York Supreme Court, 1839)