Case ID: njl_15/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GARRABRANT v. McCLOUD.
    If an appeal bond, without a seal, is accepted and sent up by the Justice, the Court of Common Pleas under the statute, (Hair. Comp. 5,) ought to permit the appellant ' to substitute a new bond; and if they refuse so to do, a mandamus will issue from this court.
    This was a motion for a mandamus to the Common Pleas, to reinstate an appeal, which had been dismissed.
    
      Amzi Armstrong, in support of the motion.
    Frelinghuysen, contra.
    
   By the Court.

The Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal, for the want of an appeal bond; the writing sent up by the Justice, and purporting to be an appeal bond, not having been sealed, and the court refused to permit the appellant to put in a new bond. "We think the court erred. The statute, (Harr. Comp. 5,) says “ the court may permit the appellant to substitute a new appeal bond, in the place of the appeal bond filed and sent up by the Justice.” This is a remedial statute, and the ends of justice, as well as the rule of law, requires us to give it a liberal construction. True, the paper sent up, was not technically a bond ; but it was one in form, though imperfectly executed. It was no doubt, intended for a bond, and had been accepted by the Justice as such ; and the statute was ' intended to meet all cases, where through accident or ignorance, an insufficient or imperfect bond had been accepted by the J ustice below. The court ought to have permitted the appellant to put in a new bond; and therefore a mandamus must be allowed as prayed for.

Mandamus allowed.

Cited in Thorpe v. Keeler, 3 Harr. 252.