Tompkins v. Curtis

3 Cow. 251
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1824·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Curia,

per Sutherland, J.

The Court erred in refusing to permit another surety to be substituted. There cannot be a doubt that the person so substituted would be liable upon the bond, so that no possible injury could result from the change. The power of the Court to grant the application is clear. They were fully possessed of the cause. The bond, with the other papers and proceedings, had been returned and filed with the Clerk. The surety was in the nature of bail, whom it is the established practice of the Courts to discharge upon other bail being substituted, when the first is a material witness for his principal. The case cited of Irwin v. Caryell is in point. The judgment must be reversed and a venire de novo, go from the Common Pleas.

Judgment reversed.

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

Tompkins v. Curtis, 3 Cow. 251 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1824).

3 Cow. 251 (Tompkins v. Curtis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Decker v. . Judson
16 N.Y. 439 (New York Court of Appeals, 1857)
Taylor v. B. Bank at Huntsville
14 Ala. 633 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1848)
Colgate v. Hill
20 Vt. 56 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1847)
Moore v. McKie
13 Miss. 238 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1845)