Stolp v. Van Cortland
New York Supreme Court
Error, from the Onondaga common pleas. Stolp sued Van Cortland before a justice and obtained a judgment. Van Cortland appealed to the Onondaga common pleas.
Read the full summary
Error, from the Onondaga common pleas. Stolp sued Van Cortland before a justice and obtained a judgment. Van Cortland appealed to the Onondaga common pleas. The jus- . , 1 „ 7 7. , • , , . tice made a -return of the proceedings and judgment in the ,cause jn which he stated the issue as follows: “ The plaintiff x m declared on a booh account generally and failure on contract; t^le defendant pleaded the general issue, failure on contract, monies had and receivedand that issue being thereupon joined, the defendant demanded that the cause should be tried by-a. jury, &c. On the trial in the common…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The account which the plaintiff below exhibited to and left with the justice at the time of declaring and joining issue, must be considered a part of the declaration. The case of Ehel v. Smith, (3 Caines, 187,) is a direct authority to this point. It is not denied if it had been attached to or incorporated in the declaration, that it would have been sufficiently precise. But it is said that the justice in his return states that the “plaintiff declared on book account generally and failure in contract and that it is contradicting the return to shew that at the same…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ehel v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1805
3Cited by1 opinion
- Groff v. GriswoldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845