Bailis v. Cochran
New York Supreme Court
This case came before the court, upon a writ of error, founded on a bill of exceptions, taken at the court of common pleas, for the county of Washington. The suit below was on a promissory note given by Cochran to Bailis, and for money lent. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the statute of limitations. Upon the trial, Bailis, the plaintiff below, offered in evidence a commission, with the proceedings thereon, issued out of the said court, and duly returned.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court, upon a writ of error, founded on a bill of exceptions, taken at the court of common pleas, for the county of Washington. The suit below was on a promissory note given by Cochran to Bailis, and for money lent. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and the statute of limitations. Upon the trial, Bailis, the plaintiff below, offered in evidence a commission, with the proceedings thereon, issued out of the said court, and duly returned. To the readingofit, the counsel for the defendant objected,!. That it did not appear that Samuel Wright, the witness, was…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
de^jyered the opinion of the court. The statute requires, under such a commission, that the witness be examined by the commissioners upon oath, upon the interrogatories annexed, and that the commissioners cánse the examination to be redtíced into writing, and to be signed by the witness, and that the commissioners also sign the same, and annex it to the commission, and return it, &c.* In , . , . „ the present case, there was a deposition of the witness annexed and returned, which states, that 1. S. W. (the person mentioned in the commission) being duly sworn, in*answer to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ellison v. DolbeySuperior Court of Delaware · 1900
- Ames & Hoyt v. Gatey, McCune & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1857
- Goodyear v. VosburghNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- Scott v. HornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848