Humphrey v. Cande
New York Supreme Court
S. L. Edwards and H. Bleeclcer,:moved for a rule tha,t certain moneys which had been levied upon afi.fa. issued out of this Court, in favor of Chichester & Van Wyck, against the above defendants, and paid over to Chichester The affidavits upon which the motion was founded, were entitled thus: “ Supreme Court. Abel Russ, assignee of Elijah Humphrey, Seabury Tredwell, Joseph Kissam ¿y Samuel Kissam. v. Alvin Chichester Abraham H. Kan Wyck.”
Read the full summary
S. L. Edwards and H. Bleeclcer,:moved for a rule tha,t certain moneys which had been levied upon afi.fa. issued out of this Court, in favor of Chichester & Van Wyck, against the above defendants, and paid over to Chichester The affidavits upon which the motion was founded, were entitled thus: “ Supreme Court. Abel Russ, assignee of Elijah Humphrey, Seabury Tredwell, Joseph Kissam ¿y Samuel Kissam. v. Alvin Chichester Abraham H. Kan Wyck.” The affidavits then proceeded, and in the body of them the causes in which the question arose were described and set forth particularly and truly.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The objection is fatal. There is no such cause in existence, as the one mentioned in the title ; and such an affidavit is never received. The party cannot be. convicted of perjury though he swear falsely. We refuse to hear motions for writs of mandamus upon affidavits which are entitled, and. the same rule prevails in the King’s Bench as to affidavits to hold to bail.
Motion denied.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Kearney v. AndrewsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856
- Kulich v. KertacySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Burleigh v. SartainSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
- Blake Crusher Co. v. WardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1874
- Burleigh v. SartainSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.