Bowditch v. Salisbury

9 Johns. 366
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The objections taken to the justice~s return are uutenah1e~ The declaration was not in writing; but from the statement of the plaintiff's demand, it appeared to be founded on an unsettled book account, and upon certain notes which the deiendant had received to collect. Although the nominal amount of the notes was beyond the justice’s jurisdiction, yet the plaintiff claimed only 25 dollars; and he might relinquish all beyond that sum, which he must be presumed to have done, by demanding only 25 dollars. The adjournment by the justice for one day was legal, under the first section of the act. The defendant did not require a longer adjournment, or bring himself within the 2d section of the act. The justice does not profess to return all the evidence. The court cannot, therefore, upon the merits, determine whether or not justice has been done. If any thing, not appearing on the return, took place upon the trial, of which the plaintiff in error complains, he should have procured a more complete return.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bowditch v. Salisbury, 9 Johns. 366 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 366 (Bowditch v. Salisbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gigliotti v. Jacksina
206 A.D. 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Lewers & Cooke, Ltd. v. Redhouse
14 Haw. 290 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1902)
Stewart v. Thompson & Co.
11 S.E. 1030 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)
Prussia v. Guenther
16 Abb. N. Cas. 230 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Ryan v. Doyle
40 How. Pr. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1870)
Rockwell v. Perine
5 Barb. 573 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Stevens v. Howe
6 Vt. 572 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1834)
Dennison v. Collins
1 Cow. 111 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)