Legal Opinion

In re Bronson

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1815PublishedCited by 10 opinions

*> MUM®()anoved" for' a Pule 'to show/cause why an attaelimení:should not issue .against Mitchill^for á publication in a gazette, of which he was the editor,, reflecting on Bronson, .for bringing a certaiu rsuit, in-which hé was plaintiff, and which was pending in this court. ■ '■ ' , The affidavits, on which the motion was founded, were entitled, f‘ In the matter of Isaac Bronson ánd Caldwell Mitchill ;n and Cloirden objected; that the affidavits'not being properly…

Read the full summary

*> MUM®()anoved" for' a Pule 'to show/cause why an attaelimení:should not issue .against Mitchill^for á publication in a gazette, of which he was the editor,, reflecting on Bronson, .for bringing a certaiu rsuit, in-which hé was plaintiff, and which was pending in this court. ■ '■ ' , The affidavits, on which the motion was founded, were entitled, f‘ In the matter of Isaac Bronson ánd Caldwell Mitchill ;n and Cloirden objected; that the affidavits'not being properly entitled, in the smEpending here, ought' not to be- read*' He cited Folger v. Hoogland, (5 Johns. Rep. 235.,) in which the court…

1Opinion of the Court

Thompson, Ch. J.

The1’ affidavits .are Wrongly entitled.. Until an attachment issues, the affidavits must fee entitled ih the Civil suit. There is-'no such suit pending here as that menti'oned in- the title -. of these affidavits^ ■- .. - ,'vv/:-

Spencer, J.

I-do ®ér.thipife '--fila*, pn. -an ’apptitjatión of this kind, the affidavits ought to fee entitled at all; but here they" áre entitled, and erroneously, and'eanhot be read. • >

Van Ness, J.

I -do not consider i| necessary that the affida* vits shoti-id fee entitled at all, and the present title may fee rejeeted as surplusage.M-t is merely to…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Cheadle v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Milliken v. SelyeNew York Supreme Court · 1846
  3. In re SturocSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869
  4. People v. ChrystalNew York Supreme Court · 1850
  5. Burleigh v. SartainSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935

5 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