Legal Opinion
Ferguson v. Jones
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 20, 1834PublishedCited by 9 opinions
The plaintiff moved to quash a certiorari issued to remove this cause from,the common pleas of New-York. The writ not being returnable until January next, the defendant objected that the motion to quash was irregular; that the plaintiff should have moved to supersede the writ; and cited Tidd’s Pr. 385. In answer to which, it was said that the notice was of a motion to quash the writ, or for such other order as the court should think proper to make.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sutherland
ruled, that under the general prayer, the plaintiff was entitled to an order to supersede, and granted a rule accordingly.
2Cited by9 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Johnson v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- State ex rel. Dalrymple v. Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- State ex rel. Tibbits v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Savage v. Mathieson Alkali Works Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1940
- Saratoga & Washington Rail Road v. McCoy, Hodgman & WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1851
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.