Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Cow. 80

Ex parte Chryslin

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1825

New York Supreme Court · decided 1825-02-15

Hickok & Hamilton sued Chryslin before a Justice of the Peace of the county of Onondaga, and recovered judgment against him for $34 99 damages and costs, from which the defendant appealed to the next Court of Common Pleas of .that county, gave the proper notice, paid the costs, and gave a bond with a surety approved by the Justice, payable to the plaintiffs, with a penalty of $70, conditioned, after recithrg the judgment and that the defendant had appealed, thus: “ that if…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1859

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1825-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The bond was defective. The clause relative -to paying the judgment below, with interest, and costs of the appeal, &c. was omitted, which is a material part of the condition required by :the.statute.(a) This being so, the act is peremptory that the appeal, shall not be received.' It had no force or effect whatever. (Sess. 47, ch. 238, s. 36.) The Court had no discretion. It seems to be the intention of the legislature that the party shall not be heard on appeal, unless he comply .strictly with the terms of tire act. The Court below acquired no jurisdiction of .the appeal. There is no cause concerning which we cair interfere. In this view, they had no power to amend the bond. After being possessed of the cause, they may exercise the ordinary power of amending, as we' held in' the 'case cited, of Tompkins v. Curtiss ; but they cannot, do this till the cause is before them. The motion must be denied.

¶2Rule accordingly.

¶3 Vid. ante, p. 61.

/4/cow/80 · .json · Public domain