People v. Judges of Oneida Common Pleas

1 Wend. 28
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage,'C. J.

Upon strict rules of grammatical construction, the bond is defective; but by transposing one line in the condition, so as to read the words italicised after the word appellant, the bond becomes perfect. In the construction of a written instrument, the whole is to be taken together, and effect given to the intent of the parties, if that can be discovered from the general scope and tenor of [29] the instrument. Enough is contained in the .condition of this bond, literally to comply with the requirements of the statute, if the sentences had been properly distributed. The court,, therefore, are disposed to consider the bond as good, and direct an alternative mandamus to issue.

Motion granted.

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

People v. Judges of Oneida Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 28 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

1 Wend. 28 (People v. Judges of Oneida Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Frankel v. Stern
44 Cal. 168 (California Supreme Court, 1872)
Swain v. Graves
8 Cal. 549 (California Supreme Court, 1857)
Teall v. Van Wyck
10 Barb. 376 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)