People v. Richardson
New York Supreme Court
The Attorney General having proceeded to enter an appearance for, and to take a default against the defendant pursuant to a rule obtained on an ex parte application for the purpose, at the last term, as mentioned in 3 Cowen’s Rep. 357, S. C.
1Opinion of the Court
[Sutherland, J.
I think we had that very case before us, when we granted your rule at the last term.]
The 4th section of the statute, the title of which is, “ An act for rendering the proceedings upon informations in nature of a quo warranto more speedy and effectual,” provides that the defendant shall appear and plead as of the same term in which the information shall be filed, unless the Court shall give farther time. One object of the statute was to avoid delay ; and its beneficial ends would be entirely defeated in many cases arising under our constitution and laws, the provisions of which…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Commonwealth v. FowlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Commonwealth v. Union Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- People ex rel. Macey v. HillsdaleNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Commonwealth v. AthearnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Ames and Others v. State of Kansas Ex Rel. Johnston. Kansas Pac. Ry Co. v. SameSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- State ex rel. Page v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- People ex rel. Cooney v. City of PeoriaIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- State ex rel. Lloyd v. ElliottUtah Supreme Court · 1896
- Ames v. Kansas Ex Rel. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.