Cramer v. Van Alstyne
9 Johns. 386
Opinion
The case of Campbell v. Gumming (2 Burr. 1187.) is in point. Where an exec.ulion is returnable out of term, it is not void, though liable to be set aside, on motion, for irregularity. It may, therefore, be amended, though it would be otherwise as to mesne process. We grant the rule to amend, on payment of costs.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cramer v. Van Alstyne, 9 Johns. 386 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).
9 Johns. 386 (Cramer v. Van Alstyne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sharman v. Huot
52 P. 558 (Montana Supreme Court, 1898)
Dyer v. Montieth
1 Mich. N.P. 125 (Circuit Court of the 48th Circuit of Michigan, 1870)
Ortman v. Dustin
1 Mich. N.P. 101 (Circuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan, 1867)
Whitney v. Brunette
15 Wis. 61 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1862)
Morrell v. Cook
31 Me. 120 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1850)
Stone v. Martin
2 Denio 185 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)
Williams v. Hogeboom
8 Paige Ch. 469 (New York Court of Chancery, 1840)
Scribner v. Whitcher
6 N.H. 63 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1832)
Jones v. Cook
1 Cow. 309 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)
Jackson v. Crane
1 Cow. 38 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)
Wilson v. Huston
7 Ky. 332 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1816)