Ex parte Fulton

Decided October 15, 1827

New York Supreme Court · decided 1827-10-15

Fulton obtained judgment before a justice of Steuben eounty, against Zimmurman, who appealed to the Steuben O. P. By mistake, the appeal bond did not contain the name of the surety in the body of the bond, any where; but he signed and Sealed; and the bond was perfect in every other respect. Fulton made a motion in the G. P. to quash the appeal ' on that ground; which was denied. A motion was now made for a mandamus commanding • the court below to quash the appeal.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1904

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*Ouria.

¶1The only question is, whether this bond be

¶2valid and binding on the surety without his being named .in it. We think it is. It is enough in any contract, that the intent of the party clearly appear, though it be not expressed fully and particularly. A full intent to be bound by the terms of this bond, is plain from the act of executing it. This view of the case is not only reasonable, but is supported by the authorities. (Dobson v. Keys, Cro. Jac. 261; Smith v. Crooker, 5 Id. 538, 540.) Both cases cited are in point. [1]

¶3Motion denied.

¶4 See N. Y. Dig. vol. 1, tit. Appeal.