Forwood v. Quayle Lodge
This text of 3 Del. 47 (Forwood v. Quayle Lodge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The exception cannot be allowed, and it is needless to hear proof of the fact as stated. It touches a matter subsequent to the judgment, and not appearing on the record. It suggests as error the refusal of the justice to proceed to a second trial, which itself would have been error. The plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial, and the justice had no right to grant it. If by erroneously asking a new trial, he has suffered the time for appealing to elapse, it is his owm folly, but cannot vitiate a judgment already correctly rendered. His ignorance of the law or of his own rights cannot impair the rights of the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Del. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forwood-v-quayle-lodge-delsuperct-1839.