Case Name: GARRABRANT v. McCLOUD
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1836-11
Citations: 15 N.J.L. 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: GARRABRANT v. McCLOUD.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 462–462

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.