Scott v. Rushman
New York Supreme Court
Certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The Justice had made a return, but had affixed no seal to it. The defendant’s attorney entered the usual rule to assign errors, and proceeded to take a default for not complying with it; and, upon this ground, it was now moved to set aside the default as irregular,
1Opinion of the Court
Curia..
There is no necessity for a seal to the return. The Justice is equally liable for' a false return, as if a seal had been affixed. His Court is not of record ;(a) and a return under his hand is sufficient. The statute does not require a seal, and we can see no reason why one should be affixed, (b)
Motion denied.
а) Vid. Stewart v. M'Guin, ante 99.
There is certainly no reported case which determines that the seal of u single Justice is necessary upon bis return to a certiorari. It is said in Will-, lams’ Justice, Certiorari viii. “ There can be no doubt but that a return by-individual…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wheaton & Doolittle v. FellowsNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Hamill v. FerrierColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hamill v. FerrierColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
- Mowry v. CheesmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1856