Field v. M'Vickar

New York Supreme Court

Field v. M'Vickar

9 Johns. 130

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1812

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 Johns. 130 (Field v. M'Vickar) 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

Field v. M'Vickar, 9 Johns. 130 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first objection cannot prevail. If the proceedings on the attachment were regular, which is not questioned in this case, the justice had no power to supersede the attachment, but must, on the return thereof, proceed to hear the cause, as on any other process.

The allowance of fees for serving subpoenas on more than four witnesses, is prohibited by the proviso in the 24th section of the act. We could wish to get over this objection, as the difference is only 12 cents and a half; but it is insurmountable. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

J udgment reversed,

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

Per Curiam.

The first objection cannot prevail. If the proceedings on the attachment were regular, which is not questioned in this case, the justice had no power to supersede the attachment, but must, on the return thereof, proceed to hear the cause, as on any other process.

The allowance of fees for serving subpoenas on more than four witnesses, is prohibited by the proviso in the 24th section of the act. We could wish to get over this objection, as the difference is only 12 cents and a half; but it is insurmountable. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

J udgment reversed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Johns. 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/field-v-mvickar-nysupct-1812.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack