Carrington v. Hutson

35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 371
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1882
StatusPublished

This text of 35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 371 (Carrington v. Hutson) 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
Carrington v. Hutson, 35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 371 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

Opinion

By the Coukt :

It was decided in Courtney v. Baker (3 Den., 27,) that in an action for the statutory penalty against a witness who had failed to attend, the plaintiff must show that the witness was material and that damages resulted from his non-attendance. That is, a sound construction of the law. There is no reason why a plaintiff should recover this penalty, unless he was aggrieved; that is, unless the [373]*373absence of the witness caused some injury. There is nothing in the Code Civil Procedure (§ 853) to change this rule of law.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. .

Present — Learned, P. J., Bookes and Westbrook, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Courtney v. Baker
3 Denio 27 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrington-v-hutson-nysupct-1882.