Brush v. Taggart
7 Johns. 19
This text of 7 Johns. 19 (Brush v. Taggart) 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
Brush v. Taggart, 7 Johns. 19 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
Opinion
The decision below was correct. The ' contents of the writ of certiorari could not be proved by parol, so long as the writ itself, or a sworn copy of it, might have been produced. The case of Edmonstone v. Plaisted (4 Esp. Rep. 160.) shows the strict manner in which the contents of á process, or the existence of it, is to be proved,
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Barth v. Loeffelholtz
84 N.W. 846 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1901)
Dawley v. Brown
16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 461 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Day v. Moore
79 Mass. 522 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1859)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
7 Johns. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brush-v-taggart-nysupct-1810.