Case ID: ny-sup-ct_27/html/0562-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barrett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES B. IRWIN, Respondent, v. WILLIAM T. JUDD, Appellnat.
    
      Undei'taking given on procuring an orden' of arrest — %>owen' of the court to allow an amiendment of defects thei'ein.
    
    Appeal from an order made at Special Term, denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest and allowing tbe plamtiff to amend tbe undertaking given when it was granted.
    Tbe undertaking was defective in not being joint and several as required by section 812 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in not providing that tbe plaintiff would pay all costs which might be awarded to tbe defendant, and all damages which be might sustain by reason of tbe arrest, if tbe defendant recovered judgment, or if it was finally decided that tbe plaintiff was not entitled to the order oí arrest, as required by section 559 of tbe said Code, as amended in 1879.
    Tbe court, at General Term, said: “ Tbe power to amend an undertaking, defective even in matter of substance, is conferred by section 730 of tbe Code of Civil Procedure. This is obvious when we read this section in connection with section 729 and consider that, under the latter, an amendment of an undertaking defective in matter not of substance is unnecessary. Sections 723 and 724 are also very broad in permitting amendments to cure mistakes, omissions, defects and irregularities. We think tbe amendment was properly allowed.”
    
      James L. Bishop, for tbe appellant. G. Irvine Whitehead, for tbe respondent.
   Opinion by

Barrett, J.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Barrett, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.