Day v. Wilber
New York Supreme Court
In Error, or a certiorari, to a justice’s court, upon a conviction under the 101. act, for selling spirituous liquors without a license. The plaintiff assigned twenty errors, but relied principally on the following: 1st. That there was no endorsement on the warrant, either of the name of the plaintiff, or the title of the statute on which the process was issued; 2d.
Read the full summary
In Error, or a certiorari, to a justice’s court, upon a conviction under the 101. act, for selling spirituous liquors without a license. The plaintiff assigned twenty errors, but relied principally on the following: 1st. That there was no endorsement on the warrant, either of the name of the plaintiff, or the title of the statute on which the process was issued; 2d. That in the process or warrant issued on the plaint, there was no plea mentioned, nor that the defendant owed the plaintiff and the overseers of the poor any money and detained it from them ; 3d. That the plaintiff and defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
I shall consider the causes alleged for error in the order in which they naturally/arise. 1. It is alleged that the directions of the act, commonly called the 10?. act, have not been observed, as the first process was by warrant, and not by summons. The act directs that the justice, on application under the act, shall issue a summons, or warrant, as the case may require ; that the process against freeholders and inhabitants having families, shall be by summons, unless the plaintiff shall prove on oath that he is in danger of losing his demand, of that he believes the defendant…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Lewis v. FewNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Clapp v. . GravesNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Bayless v. CranyNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Blanchard v. RichlyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Sebring v. WheedonNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.