Van Slyke v. Schmeck

New York Court of Chancery

Van Slyke v. Schmeck

10 Paige Ch. 301, 3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 38, 1843 N.Y. LEXIS 434, 1843 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 70

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedJuly 18, 1843

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 Paige Ch. 301 (Van Slyke v. Schmeck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Slyke v. Schmeck, 10 Paige Ch. 301, 3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 38, 1843 N.Y. LEXIS 434, 1843 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 70 (N.Y. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

If no other difficulty existed in this case than the technical defect in the condition of the bond, that could be remedied by allowing the appellant to amend, under the provisions of the revised statutes on that subject. (2 R. S. 556, § 34. Potter v. Baker, & Paige’s Rep. 290.) The formal defect in the petition of appeal is also one which this court would permit the appellant to amend, upon payment of costs, &c.

But the statute declares that the appeal shall not be effectual until a bond shall be filed with the surrogate, with two sufficient sureties, to be approved by him. (2 R. S. [303]*303610, § 108.) If the appeal bond, therefore, is not approved by the surrogate within the time allowed by law for appealing, the appeal is irregular and must be dismissed j as this court has no power to remedy such a defect. Here the bond was not approved by the surrogate 5 and he states in his affidavit that he did not consider the sureties responsible for the amount required. Their affidavit of justification was not equivalent to an approval of the sureties by the surrogate. For if he. doübted their responsibility, it was his duty to examine them on oath as to the particulars of their property, where it was situated, &c. and as to the nature and amount of their debts and responsibilities, before he approved the appeal bond. A bond properly approved not having been filed with the surrogate within the thirty days allowed by law for appealing, the appeal filed with him was irregular and must be dismissed, with costs.

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

The Chancellor.

If no other difficulty existed in this case than the technical defect in the condition of the bond, that could be remedied by allowing the appellant to amend, under the provisions of the revised statutes on that subject. (2 R. S. 556, § 34. Potter v. Baker, & Paige’s Rep. 290.) The formal defect in the petition of appeal is also one which this court would permit the appellant to amend, upon payment of costs, &c.

But the statute declares that the appeal shall not be effectual until a bond shall be filed with the surrogate, with two sufficient sureties, to be approved by him. (2 R. S. [303]*303610, § 108.) If the appeal bond, therefore, is not approved by the surrogate within the time allowed by law for appealing, the appeal is irregular and must be dismissed j as this court has no power to remedy such a defect. Here the bond was not approved by the surrogate 5 and he states in his affidavit that he did not consider the sureties responsible for the amount required. Their affidavit of justification was not equivalent to an approval of the sureties by the surrogate. For if he. doübted their responsibility, it was his duty to examine them on oath as to the particulars of their property, where it was situated, &c. and as to the nature and amount of their debts and responsibilities, before he approved the appeal bond. A bond properly approved not having been filed with the surrogate within the thirty days allowed by law for appealing, the appeal filed with him was irregular and must be dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Paige Ch. 301, 3 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 38, 1843 N.Y. LEXIS 434, 1843 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-slyke-v-schmeck-nychanct-1843.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack