Ackerman v. Finch
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Broome common pleas. Finch sued Ackerman in a justice’s court in the county of Broome, and sued out a summons under ■§> 32 of the act to abolish imprisonment, &c. Session Laxos of 1831,p. 403, returnable in three days.
Read the full summary
Error from the Broome common pleas. Finch sued Ackerman in a justice’s court in the county of Broome, and sued out a summons under ■§> 32 of the act to abolish imprisonment, &c. Session Laxos of 1831,p. 403, returnable in three days. The application for the summons was made by a person who appeared as attorney for the plaintiff and made an affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum, and that both parties were non-residents of the county of Broome. On the day of the return of the process, the plaintiff appeared by his attorney, and declared on a promissory…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
Neither attorney objected to the authority of the other, and the justice neither required nor took any proof of their authority pursuant to the 2 R. S. 233, § 45. I think, however, that non-objection must be received for admission, within the meaning of the statute. That declares expressly that admission shall be equivalent to proof. 2 R. S. 233, § 45. Ackerman has adopted the acts of his own attorney in appearing and making questions in the cause, by now insisting on the objections as his own. The attorney was equally his for the purpose of waiving objections. The…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Day v. GriffithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
- Sperry v. . ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Buszozak v. WoloNew York Supreme Court · 1925
- Marchand v. HaberNew York Supreme Court · 1896
- Bates v. Relyea & WrightNew York Supreme Court · 1840
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.