Whaling v. Shales
20 Wend. 673
Opinion
The proceedings are irregular where there is only one surety : see 18 Wendell, 581, and 19 id. 632 ; and it is going quite far enough to save the action, by allowing an amendment on payment of costs of the motion. The proceedings must be set aside, unless the plaintiff executes & sufficient bond nunc pro tunc, and the sureties justify.
Ordered accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whaling v. Shales, 20 Wend. 673 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1839).
20 Wend. 673 (Whaling v. Shales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Arthur v. Schriever
16 N.Y.S. 610 (Superior Court of New York, 1891)
Hanson v. Langan
9 N.Y.S. 625 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1890)
Scanlan v. O'Brien
21 Minn. 434 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1875)
Kissam v. Marshall
10 Abb. Pr. 424 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Branch v. Littleberry Branch
6 Fla. 314 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1855)
Spalding v. Spalding
3 How. Pr. 297 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)