Sutphin v. Hardenbergh

10 N.J.L. 288
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided July 1, 1829·Published

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 pregumption, 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 ba 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

Sutphin v. Hardenbergh, 10 N.J.L. 288 (N.J. 1829).

10 N.J.L. 288 (Sutphin v. Hardenbergh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.