Shotwell v. Daniels
New York Supreme Court
HARRIS moved for a rule against the judges of the „ , ~ , c court or common pleas, or mayor s court, or the city ot New-York, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them, for not making a return to a habeas corpus, issued to remove a cause from that court into this Court* The declaration in the court below contained but one . , , „ count, on a promissory note, dated the 19th or beptemher, 1810, drawn by the defendant'for 208 dollars and 56 cents, payable…
Read the full summary
HARRIS moved for a rule against the judges of the „ , ~ , c court or common pleas, or mayor s court, or the city ot New-York, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them, for not making a return to a habeas corpus, issued to remove a cause from that court into this Court* The declaration in the court below contained but one . , , „ count, on a promissory note, dated the 19th or beptemher, 1810, drawn by the defendant'for 208 dollars and 56 cents, payable six months after date, and concluded with demanding damages to 300 dollars. The cause was noticed for trial, in the court…
1Per curiam
The act (sess. 24. c. 13.) says, that no personal action depending in any mayor’s court, &c. where the sum mentioned in the condition of the bond or specialty with interest, or the matter or thing in demand, shall not exceed 250 dollars, shall, before judgment, be stayed or removed, &c. It appears from the face of the declaration, that the demand of the plaintiff was certain, and that he could not, in any event, recover the sum of 250 dollars. The court below were, therefore, right in *342disregarding the writ of habeas corpus; but, in ordinary cases, where, upon the face of the declaration, the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Devlin v. PlattNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1861
- Brown v. BristolNew York Supreme Court · 1823