Sprague v. Shed
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Shed brought an action against James and Adolphus Sprague, a promissory note, for 10 dollars, dated the 28th September, 1810. The suit was by warrant, which was returned, “ cepi corpus, and the plaintiff notified.” The justice stated that he understood by this return of the constable, that he had the defendants in custody. The plaintiff did not appear, nor any person in Jjjg behalf.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Shed brought an action against James and Adolphus Sprague, a promissory note, for 10 dollars, dated the 28th September, 1810. The suit was by warrant, which was returned, “ cepi corpus, and the plaintiff notified.” The justice stated that he understood by this return of the constable, that he had the defendants in custody. The plaintiff did not appear, nor any person in Jjjg behalf. The note was delivered to the justice by some person whose name was not mentioned. On the note was endorsed a request by the defendants to enter judgment against…
1Per curiam
This judgment cannot be supported; although probable justice has been done. The, proceedings were contrary to the established rules of law applicable to justices’ courts. The plaintiff not appearing himself, nor any person for him, was a discontinuance of his cause; and the justice had no authority to enter judgment. Although the case is not precisely within that of Martin v. Moss, (6 Johns. Rep. 126.) here being process issued against the defendants, still it comes within the principle of that case, because, by the default of the plaintiff, in not appearing, his cause was out of court, and,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- O'Connor v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Handshaw v. ArthurNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Colvin v. LutherNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Perrin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Norris v. BleakleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1856
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.