City of Summit v. Coletta
| Citation | 78 A. 1047,81 N.J.L. 153 |
| Parties | CITY OF SUMMIT v. COLETTA et al. |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1911 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Syllabus by the Court.
Appeal from District Court of Elizabeth.
Action by the City of Summit against Alfonso Coletta and Nicola Buononato. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued November term, 1910, before GARRISON, SWAYZE, and VOORHEES, JJ.
Corra N. Williams, for appellant.
This suit was instituted in the First district court of Elizabeth to recover upon a bond dated March 8, 1910, in the penal sum of $400 given by the defendants. Judgment was rendered for the defendants, and comes to this court on appeal.
The state of the case discloses that the bond in suit, after reciting that on the 1st day of March, 1910, the obligor, Coletta, was convicted by the Summit police court of violation of an ordinance of that city and sentenced to pay a fine of $200 or serve in default of such payment, a term of 90 days in the county jail, and had appealed from such judgment, contains the following condition: "If the said Alfonso Colette shall appear before the next court of common pleas * * * on the first Tuesday in May following, and prosecute this appeal, and stand and abide by the judgment of the said court and pay the said fine and such further costs as may be taxed, or deliver himself for commitment to the said county jail, if the said judgment be affirmed, or in the meantime shall pay the said fine of two hundred dollars and costs to the said Summit police court or deliver himself to the said court for commitment in the said county jail for said term of ninety days, then this obligation to be void." The plaintiff at the trial made proof of the bond, that the appeal had not been prosecuted in the common pleas and had been dismissed, that his fine had not been paid, and Coletta had not surrendered himself. The defendant over objection was permitted to put in evidence the docket of the police justice who tried the case on appeal from which the bond was given. It showed a conviction on March 1, 1910, a notice of appeal and the acceptance of an appeal bond with one Garafano, as surety, that on March 8, 1910, the defendant was surrendered by his bondsman, who requested to be released from his suretyship. Thereupon the defendant was paroled in custody of his counsel pending the filing of a new bond, and afterwards the bond now in suit was given and accepted, and by the justice transmitted to the county clerk. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Anderson, 5653
...App. 185, 48 P. 155; Harding v. Kuessner, 172 Ill. 125, 49 N.E. 1001; Portis v. Illinois Surety Co., 176 Ill.App. 590; Summit v. Colleta, 81 N.J.L. 153, 78 A. 1047; Richardson v. Penny, 10 Okla. 32, 61 P. Pratt v. Gilbert, 8 Utah 54, 29 P. 965; Hathaway v. Davis, 33 Cal. 161; Swofford Bros.......
-
ORDINARY, ETC. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...the bond may be obligatory, even if it has never been approved by the legislature. This plea cannot be sustained." In Summit v. Coletta, 81 N.J.L. 153, 78 A. 1047, on appeal from a police court conviction, the defendant posted an appeal bond with surety. Later the surety surrendered the def......
-
Local Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Hall
...of the bond, and that the bond was good as a common-law obligation. The defect involved here was not in that case. Summit v. Coletta, 81 N. J. Law, 153, 78 A. 1047, cited as holding that sureties on an appeal bond are estopped to deny the recitals therein. Meserve v. Clark, 115 Ill. 580, 4 ......
-
Local Bldg. v. Hall
...of the bond, and that the bond was good as a common-law obligation. The defect involved here was not in that case. ¶15 Summit v. Coletta, 81 N.J.L. 153, 78 A. 1047, is cited as holding that sureties on an appeal bond are estopped to deny the recitals therein. Meserve v. Clark, 115 Ill. 580,......