Ex parte Floyd v. Recorder of New-York

New York Supreme Court

Ex parte Floyd v. Recorder of New-York

11 N.Y. 180

DecidedApril 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y. 180 (Ex parte Floyd v. Recorder of New-York) 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

Ex parte Floyd v. Recorder of New-York, 11 N.Y. 180 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The recorder did not lose jurisdiction by the suing out of the writ of homine replegiando; the only effect of it in this respect was to suspend the proceedings upon the habeas corpus, until final judgment upon the writ of homine replegiando. 2 R. S. 561, § 17. Judgment having been rendered, the recorder ought to have granted the certificate asked for.

Mandamus granted.

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

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The recorder did not lose jurisdiction by the suing out of the writ of homine replegiando; the only effect of it in this respect was to suspend the proceedings upon the habeas corpus, until final judgment upon the writ of homine replegiando. 2 R. S. 561, § 17. Judgment having been rendered, the recorder ought to have granted the certificate asked for.

Mandamus granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-floyd-v-recorder-of-new-york-nysupct-1834.