Legal Opinion
Butler v. M'Intyre
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1807PublishedCited by 2 opinions
EMOTT moved for a rule requiring the justice tp amend; his return to the certiorari in this cause. He read affidavits stating a number of facts to which the plaintiffs in error wished the justice to answer, but which were no.t stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed.
1Per curiam
If the justice returns precisely and specifically as to all the facts stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed, it is enough. The law has, in this respect, given a sufficient remedy to the party aggrieved. It would be inconvenient to require the ju s tice to answer to supplementary affidavits.
Motion denied.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Draude v. Rohrer Christian Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Rourk v. MurphyNew York Supreme Court · 1883