Legal Opinion
Philips v. Caswell
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 15, 1825PublishedCited by 1 opinion
On certiorari to a Justice’s Court, it appeared that the attorney for the plaintiff in error wrote the return; hut he swore that the justice voluntarily, and without request, came to his office, and desired him to write it, which he did, the justice dictating the whole of the facts. A motion was now made to set aside the return as irreguiar; and Fox v. Johnson, (3 Cowen’s Rep. 20,) was relied on.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
We think the attorney, in this case, comes within the character of a mere amanuensis for the justice. Such an exception to the rule, established by Fox v. Johnson, was mentioned by the Court; and we think it does not come Avithin the reason of the rule. The motion is denied.
Motion denied.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Van Slyke v. DisbrowNew York County Court, Otsego County · 1909