Case of Husted

1 Johns. Cas. 136
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1799·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Radcliff, J. and Kent, J.

were of opinion that the application ought to be refused, on the ground that if the facts stated were returned on the habeas corpus, it would be conclusive against his. discharge.

Benson, J. said the motion ought to be denied, because hi s court had no jurisdiction in the case.

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

Case of Husted, 1 Johns. Cas. 136 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

1 Johns. Cas. 136 (Case of Husted) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Farrand
8 F. Cas. 1070 (D. Kentucky, 1867)