Sutphin v. Hardenbergh

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sutphin v. Hardenbergh

10 N.J.L. 342

DecidedFebruary 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.J.L. 342 (Sutphin v. Hardenbergh) 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

Sutphin v. Hardenbergh, 10 N.J.L. 342 (N.J. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Ch. Justice.

The Court of Common Pleas did right in dismissing the appeal. The party appellee is entitled to have a bond perfect upon the face of it. If the presumption is that the alteration was made before the execution, yet it is only a presumption, and may be overcome by proof to the contrary. Whether the alteration was made before or after the execution, must be put to a jury to determine, and the bond may be found to be invalid. The appellee is not compelled to take a bond which may turn out to be bad. He is entitled to a good bond.

Motion refused.

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

Ch. Justice.

The Court of Common Pleas did right in dismissing the appeal. The party appellee is entitled to have a bond perfect upon the face of it. If the presumption is that the alteration was made before the execution, yet it is only a presumption, and may be overcome by proof to the contrary. Whether the alteration was made before or after the execution, must be put to a jury to determine, and the bond may be found to be invalid. The appellee is not compelled to take a bond which may turn out to be bad. He is entitled to a good bond.

Motion refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.J.L. 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutphin-v-hardenbergh-nj-1829.