Jackson v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case. The declaration stated, that an action of ejectment was commenced in this court, in November term, 1806, by the plaintiff, on the demise of Christopher Humphrey, against John Stiles; and that one Oliver Brown, the tenant in possession, appeared and was made defendant, in the place of the casual ejector, and entered into the usual consent rule.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case. The declaration stated, that an action of ejectment was commenced in this court, in November term, 1806, by the plaintiff, on the demise of Christopher Humphrey, against John Stiles; and that one Oliver Brown, the tenant in possession, appeared and was made defendant, in the place of the casual ejector, and entered into the usual consent rule. That at the circuit held in the county of Seneca, on the 22d of June, where the said cause was noticed for trial, the said Oliver Brown refused to appear, and confess lease, entry and ouster, according to his stipulation…
1Per curiam
The court of common pleas discharged Brown upon the supposition, that he was in custody after a conviction of a contempt, for not paying the costs of the action in ejectment, pursuant to the stipulation in the consent rule. In this they were mistaken. The attachment, by virtue of which he had been arrested, was nothing more than a process to bring him into court, to answer the interrogatories which, upon the return of it, Were to be exhibited against him. This is necessary to be done in every case, before a party can be convicted of a contempt. If the answers to the interrogatories show that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hawkins v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- United States v. AnonymousUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- Androscoggin & Kennebec Railroad v. Androscoggin RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1862
- In re the Appeal of VerdonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1916
- Welch v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889