Hubbard v. Mace
17 Johns. 127
Opinion
If the fact that the outer door had been broken open had been clearly shown, we should have had no difficulty in granting the application. It appears, however, that the usual access to the inner rooms was through the back door and kitchen, which were open; and that the deputy-sheriff used no more force than was necessary to break open the door of the room occupied by the defendant. The motion must be denied. (Cowper, 1.)
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hubbard v. Mace, 17 Johns. 127 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).
17 Johns. 127 (Hubbard v. Mace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Foye v. Sewell
21 Abb. N. Cas. 15 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1888)
Stearns v. Vincent
15 N.W. 86 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)
Gordon v. Clifford
28 N.H. 402 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)