State v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Hamilton

10 N.J.L. 225

DecidedSeptember 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.J.L. 225 (State v. Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hamilton, 10 N.J.L. 225 (N.J. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Ch. Justice.

As to the notice it was properly given by the attorney, J. S. Halsted. It was not necessary to be given by the attorney in the original suit. The parties interested may employ the same or a different attorney to move for an assessment upon the sheriff’s bond.

The notice was also properly given to the sheriff and his sureties, and it would not have been proper to have given it to the attorney; this is a new an'd substantial proceeding after the determination of the suit- This point was decided in a case recently before us from Somerset. In Flommerfelt v. Zellers, 2 Halst. 31, an application was made for an attachment against a person who disobeyed a rule to stay waste. The notice was given to the party, against which an objection was raised, but the court said it had been properly given.

As to the assignment of breaches upon the record, it is the uniform practice to assess the damages in this way. No instance can be found of an assignment of breaches upon sheriff’s bond.'

[227]*227Ford, J. As to the assignment of breaches, it appears to me that the breaches have been sufficiently assigned by the notice given to the defendant and his sureties.

Assessment ordered.

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

Ch. Justice.

As to the notice it was properly given by the attorney, J. S. Halsted. It was not necessary to be given by the attorney in the original suit. The parties interested may employ the same or a different attorney to move for an assessment upon the sheriff’s bond.

The notice was also properly given to the sheriff and his sureties, and it would not have been proper to have given it to the attorney; this is a new an'd substantial proceeding after the determination of the suit- This point was decided in a case recently before us from Somerset. In Flommerfelt v. Zellers, 2 Halst. 31, an application was made for an attachment against a person who disobeyed a rule to stay waste. The notice was given to the party, against which an objection was raised, but the court said it had been properly given.

As to the assignment of breaches upon the record, it is the uniform practice to assess the damages in this way. No instance can be found of an assignment of breaches upon sheriff’s bond.'

[227]*227Ford, J. As to the assignment of breaches, it appears to me that the breaches have been sufficiently assigned by the notice given to the defendant and his sureties.

Assessment ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.J.L. 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-nj-1828.