Case Name: John G. Rockafellar vs. Isaac Rea
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1831-02
Citations: 12 N.J.L. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: John G. Rockafellar vs. Isaac Rea.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
John G. Rockafellar vs. Isaac Rea.
After a motion to dismiss an appeal on account of interlineations in the appeal bond, the appellant may be permitted tto prove by the person who drew the bond (if he is present in court) that the interlineations were made previous to the execution of the bond. •
This was an application for a mandamus, to be directed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hunterdon, to require them to restore an appeal which had been dismissed, and *came before this court upon the following state of the case, agreed on by the attorneys of the parties.
“ This case being called in its turn. A. Miller, attorney of appellee, moved that the appeal be dismissed on account of defects in the appeal bond; whereupon the appellant called John Barton, esq., and offered to prove that he filled up, interlined, and perfected the appeal bond, with his own handwriting, prior to its execution, and that it is now in the same situation it was at the time of the execution and delivery. To which evidence the attorney of appellee objected, and the court sustained the objection, and thereupon dismissed the said appeal.”
Hamilton
moved a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Court of Common Pleas to restore the appeal; and cited 5 Halst. 288, Sutphin v. Tunison ; 6 ib. 187, Shinn v. White.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Let the rule be allowed.