People ex rel. Mallard v. Judges of Madison County
New York Supreme Court
The return' to the alternative mandamus granted in February term last, as stated in 6 Cowen, 593, S. C., agreed substantially with the facts mentioned there, except that now it was shown affirmatively, that the appellee did not discover the defect in the bond till during the trial; and lust before the motion to dismiss the appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The case is not essentially varied from what it was upon the affidavits originally presented. It was the business of the appellee to search, and find out whether the proceedings were regular or not, in the first instance; and before the cause was noticed a third time for trial. This consideration alone is sufficient to deny him costs, beyond those of the motion to quash.
But we go on another ground in this class of cases. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the cause. Mot having jurisdiction of that, the general costs cannot be ^awarded. They are incident to the cause.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lowe v. The BenjaminU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1847
- Bartels v. HoeySupreme Court of Colorado · 1877
- Harriott v. New Jersey RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858
- Bernhard v. RiceNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Burnham v. RangeleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.