Legal Opinion

Earl v. Hurd

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1839PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Suit in chancery certified from the St. Joseph Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.

This is a motion by the defendant to suppress certain depositions of the complainant.

The depositions of Wiley and Lane were taken under a dedimus directed “to any justice of the peace in Washtenaw county, state of Michiganthe name of the justice not being stated. The depositions are certified by Chauncey' Knapp, stating himself to be a justice of the peace of the county and state mentioned in the dedimus. The objection is, that it does not sufficiently appear that Knapp is a justice. The statute says, “that when a dedimus potestatem shall issue from any Court in this state, directed to any…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Halliday v. McDougallNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  2. Halliday v. McDougallCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Uhl v. HarveyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Waldo v. BeckwithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1854
  4. Dumont v. McCrackenIndiana Supreme Court · 1842
  5. Marks v. Hardy's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API