Kinnie v. Whitford

Decided August 15, 1819

New York Supreme Court · decided 1819-08-15

MOTION on the part of the defendant that the writ of error, filed in this cause, be a supersedeas, to the execution issued on the judgment, &c. It was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff, qui tam, &c. under the eighth section of “ the act to prevent and punish champerty and #maintenance.” A judgment was obtained by the plaintiff for 400 dollars, and the record was filed on the 31st of May last. Á wrj>t of error cormn vobis was brought to reverse the judgment, and…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1861

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1819-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1In a qui tam action, the statute (1 N. R. L, 143. sess. 24. ch. 25. s. 2. 2 R. S. 595, 596. sec. 26, &c.) does not require that bail to a writ of error should be put in, in order to make it a supersedeas. But in this case the execution had issued, and was actually levied on the property of the defendant, before the writ of error was filed; and the writ of error was, therefore, no supersedeas. This W'as so decided in Blanchard v. Myers, (9 Johns. Rep. 66.) (a)

¶2Motion denied.

¶3 See Blunt y. Greenwood, 1 Comen, 21. When a writ of error is taken on a judgment in partition, bail is necessary in order that it may operate as a stay of execution; so in ejectment and dower, 6 Cowen, 611.