Case Name: Ex parte Shethar
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1825-08
Citations: 4 Cow. 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte Shethar.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
Ex parte Shethar.
of ^common pleas, at any cecdhig Jpon appcal ^ from a become satisstatutehat(sess°. 47, ch 236, s. complST with m bringing the may refuse to where,d on the trial, they are the appeal ecutedWa with"
out authority. In this and the like cases, they are without jurisdiction
Motion for a mandamus to the Judges of Allegany C. P. commanding them to vacate a rule dismissing an appeal to them from a Justice’s Court, brought by Shethar against Crook. The cause proceeded to trial, and after the appeliant ghethar, who was plaintiff before the justice, had gone through with his evidence to the jury, the appellee objected that the appeal bond purported to have been executed by ghethar, by his attorney. The justice had endorsed his approval of the security. The appellee insisted that the Court should not proceed without proof of the attorney’s authority to execute it; to which it was answered that the justice having approved the security, the Court became possessed 0f the cause, and should hear no evidence except what was pertinent to the issue; hut the Court directed that unless ^e appellant proved the authority of the attorney, they should dismiss the appeal; and no proof being produced,. they discharged the jury.
F. Tracy, for the motion.

Opinion:
Curia.
We think the Court below were right in refusing to proceed. They may inquire into their authority or jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings. The statute, (sess. 47, ch. 238, s. 36,) under which this appeal was brought, is peremptory that the appeal shall not be received or be of any force or effect unless a bond is given, and the other accompanying requisites complied with. A bond, good in form merely, without any power to execute it, is void, and as nothing; the Court would be without jurisdiction, and a trial would be a nugatory thing, coram non judice. The case is within tlm principle of Ex parte Chryslin, decided last February term; (4 Cowen's Rep. 80;) and the motion must be denied.
Motion denied,