Case ID: miles_2/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLLINGSWORTH v. McKEAN.
    January 25, 1840.
    As to the practice relating to security for stay of execution.
    
    
      1. If only one surety be offered for a stay of execution, under the act of 16th June, 1836, the court will not approve, unless he satisfies the court, or one of the judges, that he is worth double the amount of the judgment, over and above all his debts and liabilities.
    
      2.If more than one, the sureties offered must satisfy the court or one of the judges, that taken conjunctively, they are worth double the amount of the judgment, over and above all their debts and liabilities.
    THIS was an application to enter security for a stay of execution, on a judgment rendered against the defendant in this court, under the act of 16th June, 1836, relating to executions, sections 3d and 4th. (Stroud’s Purd. tit. Execution.) Several exceptions having been taken by the plaintiff’s counsel, which it is unnecessary to recapitulate;
   The Court

said that certain rules governed them in the consideration of applications of this nature, the approval of the security proposed being vested in the court or one of its judges, by the act of 16th June, 1836. These rules are noted at the beginning of the report of this case.