Baker v. Taylor
New York Supreme Court
T. J. Oakley, for the defendant, moved for a rule staying the plaintiff perpetually from issuing a ca. sa. in this cause. A verdict in assumpsit had been given for the plaintiff, in 1819. The rule for judgment was not entered till May term, 1833, when the judgment was perfected, and a Jifa. issued thereon.
Read the full summary
T. J. Oakley, for the defendant, moved for a rule staying the plaintiff perpetually from issuing a ca. sa. in this cause. A verdict in assumpsit had been given for the plaintiff, in 1819. The rule for judgment was not entered till May term, 1833, when the judgment was perfected, and a Jifa. issued thereon. Intermediate the verdict and judgment, the defendant had obtained the discharge of his person under the act, (sess. 42. ch. 101) for abolishing imprisonment for debt in certain cases.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The discharge was too late to admit of its being pleaded puis darrein continuance. This could no more be done than if judgment had been signed. In the latter case the uniform practice is to discharge upon motion. The case of Baker v. Judges of Ulster, in the 4th John. Rep. 191, is substantially this case. Here is nothing alleged against the discharge. Should the plaintiff object fraud, or other ground impeaching its validity, we might then open the cause, so far as to give him a chance to try this question, leaving the judgment, in the mean time, to stand as security.
Motion granted.(a)
Vi…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Monroe v. . UptonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Ewing v. PeckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- West Philadelphia Bank v. . GerryNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Williams v. HumphreysSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1888
- Bamberg v. SternNew York Marine Court · 1877