صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Jackfon ex dem. Kemp, and others against Parker and Brewster.

ALBANY.
Feb. 1805.

Mitchell

V.

Ingerfoll.

After a ver

plaintiff, if he

CAINES applied for a rule ordering the plaintiff, who had obtained a verdict, to make up the record within a given time, dict for the or that the defendant have leave to do it for him, as the ver- neglect to make dict was complete evidence for the defendant, in a fuit in up the record Chancery, between the fame parties.

Smith refifted the application, because the defendant had never requested it to be done.

the court will
permit the
defendant to
do it; but if he
apply to the

Per curiam. Take your rule, allowing twenty days+ for the court before requeft made to plaintiff to make up the record and carry in the roll, but with- the plaintiff, out cofts on either fide. Not to the defendant, because he tion will not be cofts of the moought to have made a requeft to the plaintiff before notice of allowed on ei application to the court, and we refuse them to the plaintiff because he ought not to have come here to refift.

Lucet and others against Beekman and others.

ther fide.

North, Cole.49, four days allow

ed.

The word

IF a party named in a petition, for partition, be ftated to be feifed of a certain portion, the court will intend it to be of feifed imports a fee.

of a fee.

Anonymous.

THE court faid, that in all cafes where a three months advertisement is required, a weekly notice is fufficient.

Hector M'Kenzie against John Wilfon.

TRIAL by record is a non-enumerated motion.

Mitchell against Ingerfoll.

[blocks in formation]

THE rule for affigning errors having expired, the defend- If it appear di

ant entered a default against the plaintiff.

Hopkins moved to fet it afide, on an affidavit ftating that

ligence has been ufed to obtain

Feb. 1805.

ALBANY, the transcript had been written for, and was, when the rule expired, daily expected.

Codwife & ors.

V.

Hacker.

the transcript in

Whiting contra, urged that an order to enlarge the time for affigning errors ought to have been obtained.

Per curiam. No laches is imputable to the plaintiff. error, during a He had reasonable grounds for expecting the tranfcript, let therefore the default be set aside on payment of costs.

reasonable ex

pectation of

which a default has been entered for not affigning errors, it will be fet afide on payment of cofts.

Ludlow aganft Heycraft.

THIS was an action against the acceptor of a bill of exchange,

A plea fent in which the plea, having been fent by the poft, did not arrive in time, in confequence of which a default was entered.

by the post,

will fave a default.

In future no trial by provifo

Henry moved to set it aside on affidavit, that the acceptance was conditional.

Williams refifted because it did not appear to have been on the face of the bill.

to.

Henry in reply. It might have been verbal, and is sworn

Per curiam. Take your motion on payment of cofts.

George Codwife and others against John Hacker.

THE defendant in this caufe, without any previous rule without previ- for trying it by provifo, gave a fimple notice that he should ous rule to be bring it on, but inferted a provifo clause in the venire.

obtained on

notice.

Un

der these circumftances he obtained a nonfuit at the last term, to set aside which, application was now made on behalf of the plaintiff, who did not notice for trial; the court, however, refused the motion in confequence of the provifo clause being inferted in the venue, but at the fame time made the following general rule.

ORDERED, that hereafter the defendant shall not try a cause by provifo without a previous rule for that purpose, to be granted by the court on the ufual notice.

In the cafe of Thomas Addis Emmet, Efq. who was admitted, in this term, to the degree of counfellor, the court determined that alienifm was no bar to admiffion, our ftatute

not requiring the oaths of abjuration and allegiance, to be administered either to counsel or attorneys, and this court having therefore no power fo to do. That the only oath requifite was that of office; nor could they conceive how the practice of admitting the others had crept in, unless from the old colonial practice, under the statute of 13 W. 3, c. 6, made to fecure the crown against the Pretender, by the provifions of which counsellors and attorneys are enjoined to take the oaths of allegiance and abjuration. But by thofe of 4. Hen. 4. c. 18, from whence our act is borrowed, the oath of office only is prescribed, upon taking of which Mr. Emmett received his licence.

N. B. It was ruled that a counsellor of this court is entitled to privilege, and must be proceeded against by bill as prefent in court, and not by writ.

ALBANY,
Feb. 1805.

Counfel of t court have ] ... vilege,

REGULÆ GENERALES.

ORDERED, That in future only the oath of office be administered to perfons admitted as counsel or attorney in this

court.

ORDERED, That in error on certiorari under the £.10 act, the plaintiff be entitled to have taxed against the oppofite party, only for a general affignment of error, special affignments being unneceffary, as the court is bound to decide on the merits, and overlook the defects of form.

END OF FEBRUARY TERM,

AND OF

THE SECOND VOLUME.

3 D

[ocr errors]

INDEX

OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

A.

Abfent Debtors.

See Debtors Abfconding and Absent, 1.

[blocks in formation]

Action.

See Confideration, 1. Government Officer, 1.
Illegal Contract, 1. Joinder in Action.
Malicious Profecution, I.

1. If the agent of an infured give his own
note with an indorfor for the amount of
the premium on a policy, and the affured
pay the agent the amount deducting
one per cent. per month for the time it
has to run, and after this affign the po-
licy, the affignee, after fettling a total
lofs with the infurer, and paying the
amount of the note thereout, cannot
maintain an action on the money counts
against the indorfor, nor is the note
impeachable on the fcore of ufury.
Coulon v. Green & Lovett,

153

2. A father cannot maintain an action for
debauching his daughter, per quod fer-
vitium amifit, if it appear that he con-
nived at the intercourfe with his daugh-
ter, nor can he avail himself of a cuf-
tom of the country for perfons courting
to fleep together. Saagar v. Sliger-
land,
219

Action upon the Cafe.

See Action, 2.

Addition.

1. If a man be known by the addition of
junior to his name, an indictment
against him without that addition is not
conclufive that he was not the perfon
indicted, if found by a fpecial verdict,
that he was meant, it being matter of
fact on which a collateral iffue ought to

a

« السابقةمتابعة »