Bayless v. Crany

New York Supreme Court

Bayless v. Crany

1 Cow. 86

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1823

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Cow. 86 (Bayless v. Crany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bayless v. Crany, 1 Cow. 86 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia.

By statute, (sess. 36, ch. 86, s. 95, 2 R. L. 374,) it is lawful for either of the parties, after issue joined, and before the Court shall proceed to inquire into the merits of the cause, to demand a trial by jury. By the act, (sess. 43, chi 1, s. 3,) this cannot be done, “ after the day in which an order has been made for an adjournment.” The application for a jury having been made the same day on which the first order [88]*88for an adjournment took place, but not till after that adjournmenh the only question is, whether the fir,st adjournment waa a “ proceedmg to inquire into the merits.” By “ proceed’nS to inquire, &c.” we understand, the investigation of the merits, by an examination of witnesses, or other testimony. (Cowen’s Treat. 526.) It is said that Cowen cites no authorV ty. He is, however, supported in the.' dictum by Olney v. Bacon, (1 John. Rep. 142,) and there arc repeated decisions of this Court, recognizing a Justice’s right to issue a venire after an adjournment. (Vid. 2 Caines, 137, and Sebring v. Wheedon, 8 John. Rep. 460.)

Judgment reversed.

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

Curia.

By statute, (sess. 36, ch. 86, s. 95, 2 R. L. 374,) it is lawful for either of the parties, after issue joined, and before the Court shall proceed to inquire into the merits of the cause, to demand a trial by jury. By the act, (sess. 43, chi 1, s. 3,) this cannot be done, “ after the day in which an order has been made for an adjournment.” The application for a jury having been made the same day on which the first order [88]*88for an adjournment took place, but not till after that adjournmenh the only question is, whether the fir,st adjournment waa a “ proceedmg to inquire into the merits.” By “ proceed’nS to inquire, &c.” we understand, the investigation of the merits, by an examination of witnesses, or other testimony. (Cowen’s Treat. 526.) It is said that Cowen cites no authorV ty. He is, however, supported in the.' dictum by Olney v. Bacon, (1 John. Rep. 142,) and there arc repeated decisions of this Court, recognizing a Justice’s right to issue a venire after an adjournment. (Vid. 2 Caines, 137, and Sebring v. Wheedon, 8 John. Rep. 460.)

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cow. 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayless-v-crany-nysupct-1823.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack