Ehel v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR on certiorari, the return set forth the warrant to have been directed to the constable of the town where the defendant “ dwelt/’ and thatthe plaintiff below, after declaring generally, thatthe defendant was indebted to him, delivered to the justice a book account, the greater pari of which was for tavern expenses.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR on certiorari, the return set forth the warrant to have been directed to the constable of the town where the defendant “ dwelt/’ and thatthe plaintiff below, after declaring generally, thatthe defendant was indebted to him, delivered to the justice a book account, the greater pari of which was for tavern expenses. To this the defendant . , „ . pleaded m bar the 13th section of the tavern act, restricting innkeepers from trusting any persons, other than travellers, for a larger sum than 1 dollar 25 cents, for strong or spirit-ons liquors, or other tavern expenses. The justice,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam, delivered bjr
Thompson J.. This .case comes before the court on certior aru Several exceptions have been taken to the return. We shall confine ourselves to that which relates to the declaration.
The account delivered must necessarily be taken as the plaintiff’s declaration, otherwise he sets forth no specific demand to which the defendant could answer. Although a plaintiff in a justice’s court ought not to be held to technical niceties in declaring, yet he ought to make it appear, that he has a sufficient foundation for bringing his action. *188and not by his own shewing, disclose that…
2Cited by7 opinions
- J. D. Evernghim v. R. & A. EnsworthNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Stryker v. BergenNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- People ex rel. Wilbur v. EddyNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- Niblo v. Post's administratorsNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Isaac Baker v. James AllenTennessee Supreme Court · 1812
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.