People v. Birdsall

20 Johns. 297
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1822·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As to the first point, there seems to be no settled rule of practice; but it appears to be highly reasonable and just, that there should be notice to the sureties, who may have good cause to show why execution should not issue against them. We deny the present motion, without [300] costs; but we lay it down as a rule, in future, that notice must be given. We are of opinion, that interest may be collected on the execution, against the Sheriff and his sure™ ties, if the judgment was such as would carry interest under the statute. We will stay the proceedings until the next term, to give the party ah opportunity of producing an affidavit of merits.

Rule accordingly.

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

People v. Birdsall, 20 Johns. 297 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1822).

20 Johns. 297 (People v. Birdsall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Herring v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad
63 How. Pr. 497 (New York Supreme Court, 1882)