People ex rel. Armstrong v. Court of Common Pleas
New York Supreme Court
IN May, 1821, William Armstrong obtained a judgment, ™ the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Oneida, against Adam Rutt and Lewis Putnam, on a cognovit actionem. Rutt, one of the defendants, was an infant; and a writ of error, coram nolis, was issued, returnable in September, 1821. InMarch, 1822, the Court of Common Pleas gave a judgment of reversal, by default. At the return of the writ, a motion was made to quash it, on the ground of informality, which was denied.
Read the full summary
IN May, 1821, William Armstrong obtained a judgment, ™ the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Oneida, against Adam Rutt and Lewis Putnam, on a cognovit actionem. Rutt, one of the defendants, was an infant; and a writ of error, coram nolis, was issued, returnable in September, 1821. InMarch, 1822, the Court of Common Pleas gave a judgment of reversal, by default. At the return of the writ, a motion was made to quash it, on the ground of informality, which was denied. In January term, a rule to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be granted, directed to the Court of Common…
1Per curiam
Courts of Common Pleas are creatures of statute, and, in every sense, inferior Courts. They have no power, except by statute, to grant new trials. They cannot entertain a writ of error coram nobis, nor a writ of error of any description. (Arnold v. Sandford, 14 Johns. Rep. 417.) The rule must be made absolute.
Rule absolute..
2Cited by4 opinions
- In re ErnstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Teller v. WetherellMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
- Ætna Accident & Liability Co. v. LymanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Maruccoro v. E. D. & A. F. Cronk, Inc., New York County Courts1916