Bliss v. Rice

9 Johns. 159
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rule is settled, that if an error in fact is we][ assigned, and the defendant in error pleads in nullo est erratum, he confesses the fact. It was so laid down by Hale, Ch. J. in Okeover v. Owerbury, (T. Raym. 231.) who put the very case of infancy assigned for error. (9 Viner, 550.) The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment of reversal.

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

Bliss v. Rice, 9 Johns. 159 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 159 (Bliss v. Rice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trustees of Vernon Society v. Hiles
6 Cow. 23 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)