Hinman v. Brees
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt for an escape, brought against the defendant, sheriff of Rensselaer county. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the Rensselaer circuit, in " June last It was admitted that the plaintiff had obtained a 1 regular judgment against William Le Barrow, in the court of common pleas of Rensselaer, in August, 1815, for 216 dollars $5 cents; and the defendant - was called uponrat the trial, té,' produce the .ca, sa. issued on the judgment,…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt for an escape, brought against the defendant, sheriff of Rensselaer county. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the Rensselaer circuit, in " June last It was admitted that the plaintiff had obtained a 1 regular judgment against William Le Barrow, in the court of common pleas of Rensselaer, in August, 1815, for 216 dollars $5 cents; and the defendant - was called uponrat the trial, té,' produce the .ca, sa. issued on the judgment, which- was' stated .not to -.have been returned by the defendant, but w,aS still in his possession, due notice having been…
1Opinion of the Court
^er Curiam..
This is an action bf debt-ágalnSt the defend-? fRb fef the aspppe of a prispner ipx custody, on gi'éa, sa.$ áiicf *531the questions which are presented by the case relate to the sufficiency of the proof of the execution, and whether it was re gularly issued or not. Notice to produce the éxecution on the trial had been duly given, but it was not produced; and whether secondary evidence of the existence of the execution was admissible, was one question agitated upon the trial. It Was stated by the defendant’s counsel, that the execution had not been returned, but was still in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- President of the Ontario Bank v. HallettNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Hutchins v. EdsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817
- Ray v. McDevittMichigan Supreme Court · 1901