Carpenter & Rose v. Whitman
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiffs in error brought an action on the case, in the court below, against the defendants in error, for the maintenance of the bastard child of one A. G. of which the defendant, Whitman, was the putative father.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court. The plaintiffs in error brought an action on the case, in the court below, against the defendants in error, for the maintenance of the bastard child of one A. G. of which the defendant, Whitman, was the putative father. On the trial, the plaintiffs produced in evidence a bond given by the defendants, conditioned to indemnify the town of Stephentown against the maintenance of the child from May, 1815, to April, 1818, and proved that the mother had brought a suit, and recovered a judgment against them for 25 dollars, for its maintenance, which…
1Per curiam
The proof introduced by the plaintiffs does not seem warranted by the form of action and pleadings in the cause, but no objection was made, and, besides, the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs had proved enough to recover. The judgment, therefore, must be reversed, unless the defendants, on their part, showed enough to destroy this right. The objection that the plaintiffs had not proved that they were overseers was properly overruled. They sue in that capacity, and are described as such in the proceedings, and this was admitted by the plea of the general issue. The defendants, by the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Prince v. Commercial BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- Flint v. PierceNew York Supreme Court · 1912
- Clapp v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1828
- Town of Hudson v. HillsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- White v. MosesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.