Dunham v. Heyden
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Heyden sue.d Dunham before the justice, by summons returnable the 17th February, 1810. The plaintiff below declared against the defendant, as bail of one Whitehead, who had been taken by warrant and brought before a justice, on the 16th June, 1809, to answer to the plaintiff; and after issue joined, Whitehead prayed for an adjournment, and thereupon Dunham became security for his appearance on the 30th June, 1809, at which…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Heyden sue.d Dunham before the justice, by summons returnable the 17th February, 1810. The plaintiff below declared against the defendant, as bail of one Whitehead, who had been taken by warrant and brought before a justice, on the 16th June, 1809, to answer to the plaintiff; and after issue joined, Whitehead prayed for an adjournment, and thereupon Dunham became security for his appearance on the 30th June, 1809, at which time the plaintiff appeared, but Whitehead did not appear, and a judgment was rendered against Whitehead. To this…
1Per curiam
The first exception is, that the justice ad* journed the cause from the 17th to the 27th of February5. at the instance and on the oath of the plaintiff below, that he could not safely proceed to trial for the want of a material witness then absent from the county.
The only authority to adjourn, unless at the instance of the defendant, is contained in the 2d section of the act, and such adjournment must not exceed six days-. In the present case, however, the defendant below appeared on the day to which the cause was adjourned, and cross-examined the plaintiff’s witness; this cured the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Moody v. Becker, New York County Courts1901
- Cornell v. ReynoldsNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- In re Pugh, New York County Courts1897
- Row v. PulverNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Seymour v. BradfieldNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.