People ex rel. Churchill v. Rensselaer C. P.
The People, on the relation of Churchill and others v. Rensselaer C. P.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court, Sutherland, J.
It is not necessary that an officer, taking an affidavit or allowing an appeal, should add to his signature the title of his office. The appeal having been allowed by one of the judges of the common pleas, that court must have been able from inspection to determine that it was allowed by a proper officer; and, in addition, it was expressly shewn by affidavit that it was properly allowed. The error of the court, therefore, must have been in requiring the title of the officer to be added to his signature. This is not necessary. Let an alternative mandamus issue.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.