Legal Opinion
Bliss v. Rice
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 15, 1812PublishedCited by 1 opinion
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The error assigned in this cause was, that Bliss, the defendant below, was an infant, under the age of 21 years, and appeared in person, and not by guardian. The defendant in error pleaded in nullo est erratum.
1Per curiam
The rule is settled, that if an error in fact is we][ assigned, and the defendant in error pleads in nullo est erratum, he confesses the fact. It was so laid down by Hale, Ch. J. in Okeover v. Owerbury, (T. Raym. 231.) who put the very case of infancy assigned for error. (9 Viner, 550.) The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment of reversal.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Trustees of Vernon Society v. HilesNew York Supreme Court · 1826