The Ship Nancy v. Fitzpatrick
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR from the mayor’s court, on tin attachment by the now defendant against the ship Nancy under the act of the 10th of August 1798 “ authorizing the arrest of ships or vessels, for “ debts contracted by the master, owner or consignee, for and on “ account of such ships or vessels, in this stale.”
Read the full summary
IN ERROR from the mayor’s court, on tin attachment by the now defendant against the ship Nancy under the act of the 10th of August 1798 “ authorizing the arrest of ships or vessels, for “ debts contracted by the master, owner or consignee, for and on “ account of such ships or vessels, in this stale.” The declaration contained two counts against the vessel, in actual custody of the sheriff of the city and county of New-York, alleging in the first, the work and materials furnished to amount to 96 dollars 36 cents, and in the second to 9 dollars 48 cents, and in both, that they were so afforded…
1Opinion of the Court
Per curiam, delivered by
Livingston, J.
The first error assigned, or at least relied on, is, that it is not alleged in the declaration, that the work was done, or the materials found, within the jurisdiction of the court below.
The Mayor’s court of the city of New-York, may hold plea of actions arising in any part of the state, as well without, as within the limits of the city. It is not necessary, therefore, to state that the cause of them arose within its jurisdiction to give it cognisance, any more than if the suit had been depending in this court.
2 — -The second error is, that the title of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Foot v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- The Robert FultonU.S. Circuit Court for New York · 1826