Jackson ex dem. Wyckoff v. Humphrey

1 Johns. 498
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judge before whom the proof of the deed was made, was a competent witness to prove that it was done in Canada ; and if that fact be established, the proof was illegal and void. The oath administered in Canada, was extra-judicial, and of no validity. The judge had no authority to administer an oath out of the jurisdiction of this state, nor could the witness, in such case, be indicted for perjury. Though the judge was a competent witness, [500] he would not have been bound to answer any questions impeaching the integrity of his conduct as a public officer. We are of opinion that a new trial ought to be granted, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

New trial granted.

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

Jackson ex dem. Wyckoff v. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 498 (Jackson ex dem. Wyckoff v. Humphrey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mutual Life Insurance v. Corey
31 N.E. 1095 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Lander v. Bromley
48 N.W. 594 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1891)
State ex rel. Beach v. Sutton
3 Mo. App. 388 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1877)
Gt. W. Turnpike Co. v. . Loomis
32 N.Y. 127 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
Lee v. Wells
81 Mass. 459 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1860)
Jackson ex rel. Walsh v. Colden
4 Cow. 266 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Wilson v. Troup
2 Cow. 195 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1823)
Lessee of Moore v. Vance
1 Ohio 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1821)