Goodell v. People
New York Supreme Court
This case -came up on a writ of error to the Court of Sessions of Madison county. The plaintiff in error had been indicted in that court for a violation of the provisions of the statute (2 i?../S'.,'288), which forbids the buying of demands for the purpose of prosecution. He pleaded that he received the note, &c., without any intent to prosecute it in a court of record. The public prosecutor demurred, because it did not deny an intent of prosecuting it in a justice’s court.
Read the full summary
This case -came up on a writ of error to the Court of Sessions of Madison county. The plaintiff in error had been indicted in that court for a violation of the provisions of the statute (2 i?../S'.,'288), which forbids the buying of demands for the purpose of prosecution. He pleaded that he received the note, &c., without any intent to prosecute it in a court of record. The public prosecutor demurred, because it did not deny an intent of prosecuting it in a justice’s court. Judgment on-the demurrer was given in favor of the People, and Goodellsized out a writ of error. s
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
The simple question is this: is it an indictable offense for an attorney of.this court to buy a promissory note, with the purpose or intent to prosecute the same in a , justice’s court ?
The present language of the statute is this (p. 478, § 58, 3 R. S., 5th ed.): “No attorney, counselor or solicitor, shall, directly or indirectly, buy, or be in any manner interested in buying any bond, bill, promissory note, bill of exchange, book debt, or other thing in action, with the intent and for iho purpose of bringing any suit thereon.”
' The statute of 1818, which was entitled “An apt to prevent…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wightman v. CatlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Watertown Business Men's Ass'n v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Hoag v. WestonNew York Supreme Court · 1886