Watkins v. Haight
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR to the Court of C. P. of Steuben county, On the 20th of June, 1815,- a rule for judgment was entered in the Court below ; and on the 28th oí June, the judgment record was signed, filed, and docketed. The writ of error, was *es£ed J^ay lst> 1820, directed to the Court below, and returnable to this Court on the first Monday of the present term.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR to the Court of C. P. of Steuben county, On the 20th of June, 1815,- a rule for judgment was entered in the Court below ; and on the 28th oí June, the judgment record was signed, filed, and docketed. The writ of error, was *es£ed J^ay lst> 1820, directed to the Court below, and returnable to this Court on the first Monday of the present term. The writ and return were filed in the office of the clerk of this Court, on the 26th day of June, 1820. now moved to quash the writ of error, on the ground of the statute of limitations, passed April 5th, 1817, (sess. 40. ch. 179.) which…
1Per curiam
The case of Dash v. Van Kleeck, shows that it would be unjust and against the sound principles of legislation, to consider the act as retrospective. It must be deemed prospective merely; and the motion, therefore, is denied.
Motion denied*
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kelly v. YannottiNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
- Bullock v. Town of DurhamNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- In re LauterjungThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- McCahill v. HamiltonNew York Supreme Court · 1880
- Vaughan v. East TennesseeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee · 1877