Ex parte Mallard

6 Cow. 593
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1827·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The bond was clearly defective. But, for the reason given in the last case, an alternative mandamus must go. The practice should be uniform in all these cases ; and the present case is a striking illustration .of the propriety of the rule just pronounced, aside from the quesi tion of jurisdiction. The appellee lay by a longtime,*be; ⅛⅜ for aught that appears, fully «ware of the objection [594]*594which he finally took, to oust, the C. P. of jurisdiction. Great expense was incurred on both sides, in preparing the cause for trial, which he should have prevented by moving the court to dismiss the appeal the very first op* portunity. Independent of the question as to the right of the C. P. to award this large sum for the ordinary expenses of the suit; we are prepared to say that, in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, they should not have done so.

Rule for an alternative mandamus.

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

Ex parte Mallard, 6 Cow. 593 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).

6 Cow. 593 (Ex parte Mallard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harriott v. New Jersey Railroad
8 Abb. Pr. 284 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1858)