Clayton v. Per Dun
13 Johns. 218
Opinion
The evidence clearly shows, that the justice kept a tavern in fact; aqd whether he had, or had not,, a license for. that purpose, he Was equally disqualified for trying causes as a justice.- Nof is It material .that the suit was instituted before he became, so disqualified;. nor would it cure the defect if .the, plaintiff below did áppéar and consent, to the trial, becaiise such consent .could not confer jurisdictioft. Low v. Rice,, (8 Johns. Rep. 409.,) on the-two; last points, is.decisive.
The. judgment must, be reversed*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clayton v. Per Dun, 13 Johns. 218 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).
13 Johns. 218 (Clayton v. Per Dun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gibbs v. Gibbs
73 P. 641 (Utah Supreme Court, 1903)
In re Nevitt
117 F. 448 (Eighth Circuit, 1902)
Deming v. McClaughry
113 F. 639 (Eighth Circuit, 1902)
Stearns v. Wright
51 N.H. 600 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1872)
State ex rel. Meek v. Gleason
12 Fla. 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1868)
Moses v. Julian
45 N.H. 52 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1863)
Rathbun v. Moody
4 Minn. 364 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1860)