Legal Opinion

Sikes v. Ransom

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1810PublishedCited by 25 opinions

THIS was an application to the court, for a mandamus to the judges of the Otsego common pleas, to amend a bill of exceptions, according to the truth of the case.

1Per curiam

The application is entirely new; and it becomes a question whether this court can interfere when a court below refuses to seal a bill of exceptions. The books do not furnish much light on this subject. The practice, in England, under the statute of Westm. 2. (of which ours is a copy) seems to be, to apply to the court of chancery, for a writ grounded upon the statute. The form of the writ is to be found in the Register; (182. a.) and Lord Redesdale, in the-case of Lessee of Lawlor v. Murray, (1 Sch. and Lefroy, 75.) calls it a mandatory writ, “ a sort of prerogative writthat the iudo-es - " „…

2Cited by25 opinions

  1. Jackson Ex Dem. Astor v. CraneSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
  2. Conover v. MontemuroCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
  3. Matney v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  4. Hinton v. Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Vanvabry v. StatonTennessee Supreme Court · 1890

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API