Homer v. Martin
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit, January 20th, 1826, before Edwards, C. Judge, At the trial, the plaintiff had no evidence to sustain his ■* ■ , action except what wTas derivable from a commission *ssuefl in his behalf, and executed in the cause at the city of Boston. The direct interrogatories administered under this commission, were signed by the attorneys for the plaintiff, thus : “ Ward and Hoyt. Atts. for Pltff.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried at the New-York circuit, January 20th, 1826, before Edwards, C. Judge, At the trial, the plaintiff had no evidence to sustain his ■* ■ , action except what wTas derivable from a commission *ssuefl in his behalf, and executed in the cause at the city of Boston. The direct interrogatories administered under this commission, were signed by the attorneys for the plaintiff, thus : “ Ward and Hoyt. Atts. for Pltff.” They were, in truth, at the time of signing, counsellors of this C0Uft j but no addition to that effect was made to their signature. The interrogatories were allowed by…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Woodworth, J.
The statute directs that the interrogatories be signed by the parties, or their counsel. They were signed by Ward and Hoyt, attorneys for the plaintiff ; and approved by the judge. Proof was offered that Ward and Hoyt were counsel. I think this sufficient. The fact that they were counsel was a compliance with the act; although they were not described as such. The strictness applicable to special pleas was, I apprehend, never intended. This is evident from the statute allowing the party, as well as his counsel, to sign. No good reason can, in my view, be assigned, for…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Extension of North StreetDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1860
- Nichol v. PattersonOhio Supreme Court · 1829