Beekman v. Wright
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Wright sued Beekman, by summons; and after joining issue, on the 30th of March, 1812, the trial was adjourned, on application of the defendant below, until the 2d of May, 1812, upon giving security, &.C.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Wright sued Beekman, by summons; and after joining issue, on the 30th of March, 1812, the trial was adjourned, on application of the defendant below, until the 2d of May, 1812, upon giving security, &.C. The parties appeared again on the 2d of May, and upon proving due diligence in subpoenaing his witnesses, and making oath that a material witness, who had been subpoenaed, did not attend, the defendant moved for a second adjournment. No objection was made to the affidavit, nor was any negligence imputed to the defendant; but the justice refused…
1Per curiam
According to the decisions in Easton v. Coe, (2 Johns. Rep. 383.) Powers v. Lockwood, (9 Johns. Rep. 133.) and Hemstract v. Youngs, (9 Johns. Rep. 364.) it appears that upon giving security, and showing due diligence, and special^ canse, a defendant may be entitled to a second adjournment. The justice in this case denied the adjournment, merely on the ground that the defendant refused to pay costs.
Whether a justice’s court has a right, in any case, to exact costs, upon granting a favour to a party, it is not now necessary to decide : but under the circumstances of this case, the justice had…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ward v. LewisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1827