Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Monel ads. Gilliland. - Munger ads. Campbell.—Pettingal v. Brown.

be supported by an affidavit that the party is so advised by counsel, and in what such question consists. Vide Bonough v. Bedlow, post, contra.

MONEL ads. GILLILAND.

Motion to set aside a verdict for irregularity, denied, on the ground that it was cured by the defendant appearing at the trial and making a defence.

MUNGER ads. CAMPBELL.

Motion for a nonsuit denied, on the ground that another cause depending on the same question, was tried, in which a. point was referred for the opinion of this court.

PETTINGAL against Brown.

In an action qui tam, for the penalty on a usurious contract, the borrower is a competent witness to prove the usury. In this case the security from the borrower for the debt had been cancelled.

Milward v. Hallet.- White ads. Bancroft and Wife.-&c.

MILWARD against Hallet.

A new case under the idea of amending a case made on the opposite side, is irregular, and the first cise will stand. But a mistake of the practice in this instance appearing, the party was allowed to amend.

WHITE ads. BANCROFT and Wise.

In dower, the possession of the husband held independently, is prima facie evidence of seisin in the husband to put the tenant on his defence.

MANHATTAN Co. against LEDYARD & LEDYARD.

It is not necessary to aver in a declaration, that one of a partnership made or indorsed a note for the firin, it is suificient to say, that they (the partners,) made it, and to prove that any one of thein did so.

Stuart against Rich and others.

A turnpike case. Every person passing a gate is bound to pay full toll, as if he had travelled the whole distance between the gates.

[ocr errors]

The People v. Denslow.-Mavly v. Herrick.--&c.

THE PEOPLE against DENSLOW.

Hudson turnpike case.

A gate at the distance of 8 chains 15 links from a certain house, construed to satisfy the act which required it should be near the house.

MANLY against HERRICK.

A plaintiff before a justice, delivering a precept to a constable to be executed merely, is not thereby a trespasser by construction.

2d. That, however, not being the point raised and presented for decision at the trial; but another point was there raised and rightly decided, a new trial is granted on condition of the payment of costs.

BILLINGS ads. JACKSON er dem. Scott and others.

An attachment for costs in a civil remedy, and in the nature of an exception.

MONTEIRS ads. ARJO.

An application to remove a cause to the circuit court of the United States is in time at the first term aster bail is entered.

Deffendorf ads. Staring.-In the matter of G. Cascaden.—&c.

DEFFENDORF ads. JACKSON ex dem. Staring.

A map referred to in a deed admitted to explain and determine the interest of the grantor to convey an entire lot.

In the matter of G. Cascaden.

A prisoner is entitled to the benefit of the £1000 act, if the sum for which he is in execution (exclusive of interest,) does not exceed that amount.

In the matter of DOLE, late Sheriff, &c.

Motion for a rule to show cause why an information should not be filed against him, denied.

COLE and SPALDING ads. STAFFORD.

Bail relieved, the principal being discharged under the insolvent act, although it was proved that his inventory was not stamped. The discharge was deemed conclusive also, on that point.

In the matter of Freer.-Way v. Cary.-&c.

In the matter of FREER, Printer of the ULSTER GAZETTE.

Rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, granted on the ground of a publication contemptuous of the chief justice, who tried Croswell, and tending to prepossess the public mind, on a question pending in that case.

Way against Cary, Administrator.

NOTWITHSTANDING the additional section in the revised act, the rule is, that a justice has no jurisdiction where an executor or administrator is a party.

CROCKER ads. BENAUDET.

1st. Trespass laid in the torwn of Saratoga. The locus in

quo at the time of the trespass was in that town but since and before the suit brought was set off toanother town; held, to be well laid.

2d. The acknowledgment of the defendant that he held under the plaintiff made to an agent, is enough, without pro. ducing a power of attorney to show the agency.

3d. The agent is a competent witness, although he had agreed in behalf of his principal to refund money received in satisfaction from other trespassers in the like situation with the defendant, on condition this suit should fail. Vol. III.

86

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »