Dumond v. Carpenter

3 Johns. 141
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This application comes too late, after an assignment of errors. The plaintiff, at the time he assigned errors, should have alleged diminution, and prayed a certiorari. But if the ca. sa. were before this court, it would not avail the plaintiff. If the judgment of the court below, be correct and legal, no error will lie for any irregularity, as to the execution. Each court has a controul over its own process, and if there be any irregularity, the proper remedy is by application to the court below.

Rule refused,

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

Dumond v. Carpenter, 3 Johns. 141 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

3 Johns. 141 (Dumond v. Carpenter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schoening v. Miner
22 Haw. 353 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1914)