Sutton v. McCoy

Ohio Supreme Court

Sutton v. McCoy

1 Wright 95, 1 Ohio Ch. 95

DecidedSeptember 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 95 (Sutton v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutton v. McCoy, 1 Wright 95, 1 Ohio Ch. 95 (Ohio 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

It appears, that before the bond was executed, the clerk told the appellant he would receive the securities in it. The bond was executed in time, and handed to the clerk. He laid it away without opening till after the 30 days had expired. We think this not very material. The law requires the clerk to approve the securities, not that the bond shall be executed before him ; he did approve the security in this cause. Motion overruled.

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

BY THE COURT.

It appears, that before the bond was executed, the clerk told the appellant he would receive the securities in it. The bond was executed in time, and handed to the clerk. He laid it away without opening till after the 30 days had expired. We think this not very material. The law requires the clerk to approve the securities, not that the bond shall be executed before him ; he did approve the security in this cause. Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 95, 1 Ohio Ch. 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-mccoy-ohio-1832.