Tibbles v. O'Connor

28 Barb. 538, 1858 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 98
New York Supreme Court·Decided September 6, 1858·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Welles, J.

This is a clear case for the plaintiffs. The undertaking of the defendant provided, among other things, for the payment to the plaintiffs in this action of such sum as might for any cause be recovered against the plaintiff in that action. The 209th section of the code required that the undertaking should contain that provision. These plaintiffs have recovered these two sums in that action. They are clearly within the undertaking and the statute. It seems to me that there is no ground for the objections of the defendant.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

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

Tibbles v. O'Connor, 28 Barb. 538, 1858 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 98 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

28 Barb. 538 (Tibbles v. O'Connor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vulcanite Portland Cement Co. v. Williams
46 Misc. 405 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1905)
John Church Co. v. Dorsey
38 Misc. 542 (New York Supreme Court, 1902)
Kellar v. Carr
21 N.E. 463 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Rhodes v. Burkart
5 S.E. 347 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1888)
Jordan v. La Vine
15 P. 281 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
Carlon v. Dixon
12 P. 394 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1886)
Pollard v. . Slaughter
92 N.C. 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1885)
Hinckley v. . Kreitz
58 N.Y. 583 (New York Court of Appeals, 1874)
Hinckley v. Kreitz
4 Jones & S. 413 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1873)
Letson v. Dodge
61 Barb. 125 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)