Legal Opinion

Lusk v. Smith

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1850PublishedCited by 8 opinions

This was an appeal, by the defendants Smith and Ayer, from an order made by Justice Allen, at a special term, granting a new trial. The pleadings and evidence established the following facts. The old firm of J. H. Tomlinson & Co. (of which the defendants were survivors,) borrowed $800 of James W. Lusk, the plaintiff, in June, 1845, for which they gave him their note. In 1846 the note was renewed for $856, including the interest.

Read the full summary

This was an appeal, by the defendants Smith and Ayer, from an order made by Justice Allen, at a special term, granting a new trial. The pleadings and evidence established the following facts. The old firm of J. H. Tomlinson & Co. (of which the defendants were survivors,) borrowed $800 of James W. Lusk, the plaintiff, in June, 1845, for which they gave him their note. In 1846 the note was renewed for $856, including the interest. On the 7th Dec. 1846, the plaintiff lent the firm $405,31, for which the firm gave him their note. The firm, about the same time, collected for the plaintiff $41,50…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Gridley, J.

I. The first question presented on this motion is, has the constitution forbidden the granting of a new trial on the merits, by a single justice 1 It was provided by the 4th section of article 5 of the constitution of 1821, that “ the supreme court shall consist of a chief justice and two justices,” but it was added, “ any of whom may hold the court.” Under this provision it was decided that one justice could hold a court either at a general or special term. The phraseology of the constitution of 1846 differs from that of 1821. The 6th section of article 6 declares…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bank v. Hollingsworth.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  2. Irvin v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Fellows v. EmperorNew York Supreme Court · 1852
  4. Van De Wiele v. CallananNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878
  5. Gale v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1867

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API