Legal Opinion

M'Keon v. Lane

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided December 15, 1829PublishedCited by 2 opinions

This was a petition for a discovery, under the provisions of the revised statutes. The plaintiff brought an action of debt against the defendant, to recover of him the penalty of fifty dollars, [1 R. L. 524, sec. 20,] for not appearing as a witness in a certain cause, wherein M‘Keon was plaintiff, and one Caherty was defendant.

Read the full summary

This was a petition for a discovery, under the provisions of the revised statutes. The plaintiff brought an action of debt against the defendant, to recover of him the penalty of fifty dollars, [1 R. L. 524, sec. 20,] for not appearing as a witness in a certain cause, wherein M‘Keon was plaintiff, and one Caherty was defendant. It appeared by the petition of the plaintiff, (which was verified by affidavit,) that the original subpoena was served upon the defendant, instead of a copy; that the defendant received the original, retained it in his possession, and that the plaintiff had no copy in…

1Per curiam

The statute upon which the plaintiff has brought his action, can hardly be considered as a penal one. If it were, this court, following the practice and adopting the principles of the Courts of Equity, would refuse to grant the prayer of the petition. But the act in question is to be viewed, rather as a remedial act, and we may grant the relief sought, if the petitioner has presented a proper case for our interposition. The courts of law are not compelled, by the provisions of the revised statutes, to grant relief upon all occasions, but they are clothed with a discretion, to be exercised…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Cummer v. Judge of the Circuit CourtMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Vieller v. OppenheimNew York Supreme Court · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API