Brill v. Lord
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against the plaintiff in error, and declared for a reward offered for a horse stolen from the defendant below, and for services rendered and money expended in obtaining the horse.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against the plaintiff in error, and declared for a reward offered for a horse stolen from the defendant below, and for services rendered and money expended in obtaining the horse. After issue joined, the cause was adjourned, by consent, to another day, and at that day, after the parties had appeared, and the jury were called, though not sworn, the defendant below, by his agent or attorney, requested an adjournment again, on account of the absence of a material witness,…
1Per curiam
The evidence before the jury would not warrant the conclusion of any imposition having been practised upon the defendant, in procuring the advertisement offering the reward ; but independently of this, the proof shoxved services performed, sufficient to support the judgment, and the only question in the case is, whether the justice erred in not granting a second adjournment. We think that he did not. The object of the adjournment, as avowed, was to procure the testimony of a certain witness; and the plaintiff offered to admit, and did admit, what it was alleged the witness would prove. This…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Newton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1884
- People v. VermilyeaNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Howard v. FreemanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
- Brooklyn Oil Works v. BrownThe Superior Court of New York City · 1870
- Wilkins v. Beadleston & WoerzNew York Supreme Court · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.