President v. Osgood
New York Supreme Court
S. Jones, for the defendant, moved for a rule to enter continuances, by cúr. adv. vult. upon the roll on file, from January term, 1817, to January term, 1818. Also, to enter thereon the bill of exceptions, taken on the trial of the cause, at the ./Vtízti- York sittings, in 1816. The cause was argued' upon this bill, and a case made, at October term, 1817, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs in January term, 1818. [Vid. 15 John.
Read the full summary
S. Jones, for the defendant, moved for a rule to enter continuances, by cúr. adv. vult. upon the roll on file, from January term, 1817, to January term, 1818. Also, to enter thereon the bill of exceptions, taken on the trial of the cause, at the ./Vtízti- York sittings, in 1816. The cause was argued' upon this bill, and a case made, at October term, 1817, and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs in January term, 1818. [Vid. 15 John. Rep. 162.] A writ of error was brought within five years after January term, 1818, hut more than five years after January term, 1817. The record, with the bill of…
1Opinion of the Court
Until the very last day of the limitation, this bill has continued in the parties’ possession. It is then filed. This is irregular. The Court would not have given them leave to do this on motion. Even at common law, the merely filing a paper did not make it a matter of record ; and by the stat-. ute, it is expressly required to be filed, under the direction of the Judge. Under the old statute he was bound to appear in open Court, and acknowledge the bill to be his act.(c) The late statute (1. R. L. 319) says, “ It shall be the duty of the Justice who puts his seal thereto, for’ a witness, to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. OsgoodNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Field v. HowlandNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by1 opinion
- Teller v. WillisMichigan Supreme Court · 1864