Wagner v. Adams

New York Supreme Court

Wagner v. Adams

1 How. Pr. 191

New York Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1845·Published

Opinion

H. Adams for defendant, persisted that the statute on this subject should be construed as requiring the plaintiff himself to execute the bond [192] with one or more sureties. J. Newland for plaintiff, cited 2 R. S., 575, § 4; 4 Paige, 273, showing that the plaintiff need not join in the bond*

Jewett, Justice.

It is not necessary that the plaintiff should himself execute the bond, when he does not, two sufficient sureties must do so.

The motion was disposed of on other points.

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

H. Adams for defendant, persisted that the statute on this subject should be construed as requiring the plaintiff himself to execute the bond [192] with one or more sureties. J. Newland for plaintiff, cited 2 R. S., 575, § 4; 4 Paige, 273, showing that the plaintiff need not join in the bond*

Jewett, Justice.

It is not necessary that the plaintiff should himself execute the bond, when he does not, two sufficient sureties must do so.

The motion was disposed of on other points.

Wagner v. Adams, 1 How. Pr. 191 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

1 How. Pr. 191 (Wagner v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related