Brush v. Taggart
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, ihe suit below was an action or debt upon a judgrnent between the same parties, rendered before another insfire justice.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, ihe suit below was an action or debt upon a judgrnent between the same parties, rendered before another insfire justice. The point relied upon by the plaintiff In error was, that he pleaded and gave in evidence, that a certiorari had been issued, allowed and. served in the former cause; and to prove it. he called two witnesses, one of whom, stated that the defendant had obtained a certiorari on the judgment before Justice Gorlay, and that he had seen it; the other witness stated, that he had served it upon the justice; and upon being asked…
1Per curiam
The decision below was correct. The ' contents of the writ of certiorari could not be proved by parol, so long as the writ itself, or a sworn copy of it, might have been produced. The case of Edmonstone v. Plaisted (4 Esp. Rep. 160.) shows the strict manner in which the contents of á process, or the existence of it, is to be proved,
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Barth v. LoeffelholtzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Dawley v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Day v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1859