Burlingham v. Deyer

New York Supreme Court

Burlingham v. Deyer

2 Johns. 189

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Johns. 189 (Burlingham v. Deyer) 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

Burlingham v. Deyer, 2 Johns. 189 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The witness was a mere agent or servant, and must be considered as a competent witness, from necessity. A justice cannot act from his own previous knowledge of facts; but they must be proved before him. He must decide upon evidence produced in court. The justice ought not to have refused the release tendered by the defendant to the witness. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The witness was a mere agent or servant, and must be considered as a competent witness, from necessity. A justice cannot act from his own previous knowledge of facts; but they must be proved before him. He must decide upon evidence produced in court. The justice ought not to have refused the release tendered by the defendant to the witness. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Johns. 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burlingham-v-deyer-nysupct-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack