Daget v. Commissioners of the Alms House & Bridewell ex rel. Hoeffele

2 How. Pr. 256
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1846
StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 256 (Daget v. Commissioners of the Alms House & Bridewell ex rel. Hoeffele) 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
Daget v. Commissioners of the Alms House & Bridewell ex rel. Hoeffele, 2 How. Pr. 256 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Opinion

Defendant’s counsel insisted that a common law certiorari could be allowed, only by thé court on cause shown. (5 Wend. 98; 6 Wend. 564; 9 id. 433 ; 2 Howard, 136.) Also, that no papers or record, showing that the general sessions obtained jurisdiction by appeal and made any decision therein, had been returned in this case. The affidavit of the attorney was no part of the return, and until a final decision or judgment, a certiorari could not be allowed. (2 R. S. 390.)

Bronson, Chief Justice.

A common law certiorari cannot be allowed by a judge at chambers; and, besides, the writ in the present instance brings up no question which can be reviewed in this form of proceeding. Ordered, that the writ of certiorari allowed by the circuit judge of the first circuit in this cause be and the same is hereby quashed.

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

Related

Comstock v. Porter
5 Wend. 98 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)
Starr v. Trustees of Rochester
6 Wend. 564 (New York Supreme Court, 1831)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 How. Pr. 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daget-v-commissioners-of-the-alms-house-bridewell-ex-rel-hoeffele-nysupct-1846.