Bailey v. Caldwell

3 Johns. 451
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The distinction stated between a judge’s order to stay proceedings, and a certificate of probable cause, has never been made by the judges, who have, in practice, considered them the same, and have used either form indifferently. An order, in the form in which the one was granted in this cause,(a) has always been consi[453] dered as having the same effect as a certificate of probable cause, and as requiring the same practice, under the 4th rule of January term, 1799. The attorney of the plaintiff took the inquest in this cause at his peril; and as there is the usual affidavit of merits, and no laches is to be imputed to the defendant, it must, with the subsequent proceedings, be set aside with costs. Let the rule be taken fop that purpose, and that the plaintiffs refund and pay over to the defendant the money received on the execution, with the sheriff’s fees and costs.

Rule granted.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bailey v. Caldwell, 3 Johns. 451 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

3 Johns. 451 (Bailey v. Caldwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hempstead v. Hempstead
7 How. Pr. 8 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Rosevelt v. Fulton
5 Cow. 438 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)