Midberry v. Collins
New York Supreme Court
AN alternative mandamus had been issued, pursuant to a rule of this court, directed to the judges and assistant justices of the court of common pleas of Chenango county, commanding them to sign and seal a bill of exceptions, which had been tendered by the defendant in the above cause, or show cause, &c. One of the judges signed the bill of exceptions, and two of them made a separate re-ten, under their hands and seals.
Read the full summary
AN alternative mandamus had been issued, pursuant to a rule of this court, directed to the judges and assistant justices of the court of common pleas of Chenango county, commanding them to sign and seal a bill of exceptions, which had been tendered by the defendant in the above cause, or show cause, &c. One of the judges signed the bill of exceptions, and two of them made a separate re-ten, under their hands and seals. The return stated that the cause came on to be tried, at the last October term, before the Chenango common pleas; that several of the material tacts stated in the bill of…
1Per curiam
The fact stated in the return of the two judges, that the bill of exceptions was not tendered at the trial, but presented to the judges individually, after the term had ended, is sufficient cause for denying the present motion. The facts attending a trial are extremely liable to be mistaken or forgotten, if they are not reduced to writing at the time, and presented distinctly to the court during the continuance of the term. A s this bill was not tendered until the subsequent vacation, we will not now award process to compel the judges to sign it. The reasons upon which the court refused to…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Etheridge v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Nadenbousch v. SharerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1867
- Jelley v. RobertsIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
- Fish v. WeatherwaxNew York Supreme Court · 1801
- United States v. JarvisU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.