People v. Judges of Chautauque Common Pleas
New York Supreme Court
Motion for a mandamus, A fi. fa. having been issued against the relator in the Chautauque common pleas, and returned satisfied in part, and nulla bona for the residue, the 1 , , . . , relator was taken and imprisoned on a ca. sa. Having ohtained the benefit of the liberties, he escaped, and a suit was commenced against the sheriff.
Read the full summary
Motion for a mandamus, A fi. fa. having been issued against the relator in the Chautauque common pleas, and returned satisfied in part, and nulla bona for the residue, the 1 , , . . , relator was taken and imprisoned on a ca. sa. Having ohtained the benefit of the liberties, he escaped, and a suit was commenced against the sheriff. In September, 1826, the attorney of the sheriff, by the direction of the relator, gave a cognovit in the suit for the escape, on which judgment was entered, which has since been fully paid. In June, 1827, the plaintiff in the original judgment applied to the common…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Woodworth, J.
In accordance with the-liberal principle of amendments which has latterly obtained, and by which the ends of justice are so greatly promoted, the court feel not-disposed to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the common pleas in this case. They do not perceive that the amendment violates- any rule of law; and unless it had been allowed, it is doubtful whether- the plaintiff in the suit below would not have been remediless. The motion for a mandamus is denied.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Sheboygan v. TrillingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
- Richardson v. FarrarSupreme Court of Virginia · 1892