Legal Opinion
M'Conkey v. Glen
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 15, 1823PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Sacia, moved to set aside a writ of capias ad respondendum, because it was returnable the first day of the pres- ’ _ J J . . entterm, at the Capitol in the city of Albany. He insisted that the writ was void, and could not be amended. (a)
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The process is voidable—not void, and may be amended. This is like the case of process returnable befor us,(b) which is amendable, though the statute is equally strict in that respect as this, in requiring a specifick form.
Motion to amend granted.
Vid. Morrell v. Waggoner, 5 John. Rep. 433.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sheppard v. MelloySupreme Court of Alabama · 1847