Foot v. Morgan

New York Supreme Court

Foot v. Morgan

1 Hill & Den. 654

DecidedAugust 15, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Hill & Den. 654 (Foot v. Morgan) 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

Foot v. Morgan, 1 Hill & Den. 654 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

By the JCmrt, Cowen, J.

It was said by counsel in behalf of the motion, that a party and juror having married sisters, would be no cause of challenge: but I presume hastily; for it is put among the commonest cases in the books, as an instance of affinity which disqualifies. It was holden very early, on writ of error to parliament, that the sheriff’s wife being sister to the plaintiff’s wife, was good cause of principal challenge to the array. (Markham v. Lee, cited in Mounson and West’s case, 1 Leon. 89. Vid. Cain v. Ingham, 7 Cowen, 478, 9, and especially the note [655]*655to that case.) The same thing is mentioned as the cause of1 challenge to a juror. (Tr. per pais, 188, Land. ed. of 1766. 2 Rol. Abr. 654, pl. 17, S. P.) By 2 R. 8. 204, 2d ed. § 2, no judge can sit who is of such affinity to either party that he might be challenged as a juror; and the statute extends to a justice sitting on the trial of a civil cause. (Edwards v. Russell, 21 Wend. 63.) The judgment rendered by him is there said to be void. It is coram non judice, and may be questioned collaterally. There can be no doubt that the statute extends to the party beneficially interested, as .well as the real party. The objection to the set-off is fatal, and the motion must be denied.

Rule accordingly.

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

By the JCmrt, Cowen, J.

It was said by counsel in behalf of the motion, that a party and juror having married sisters, would be no cause of challenge: but I presume hastily; for it is put among the commonest cases in the books, as an instance of affinity which disqualifies. It was holden very early, on writ of error to parliament, that the sheriff’s wife being sister to the plaintiff’s wife, was good cause of principal challenge to the array. (Markham v. Lee, cited in Mounson and West’s case, 1 Leon. 89. Vid. Cain v. Ingham, 7 Cowen, 478, 9, and especially the note [655]*655to that case.) The same thing is mentioned as the cause of1 challenge to a juror. (Tr. per pais, 188, Land. ed. of 1766. 2 Rol. Abr. 654, pl. 17, S. P.) By 2 R. 8. 204, 2d ed. § 2, no judge can sit who is of such affinity to either party that he might be challenged as a juror; and the statute extends to a justice sitting on the trial of a civil cause. (Edwards v. Russell, 21 Wend. 63.) The judgment rendered by him is there said to be void. It is coram non judice, and may be questioned collaterally. There can be no doubt that the statute extends to the party beneficially interested, as .well as the real party. The objection to the set-off is fatal, and the motion must be denied.

Rule accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Hill & Den. 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foot-v-morgan-nysupct-1841.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack