Jansen v. Stoutenbergh

9 Johns. 369
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. The objeu» tion of want of jurisdiction in the justice, is untenable. The action falls within the denomination of actions cognisable in justices courts. There is nothing special in the proceedings, or judgment to be given, which can take away the jurisdiction. The magistrate is competent to afford the sheriff all the relief to which he would be entitled in any other court, relative to staying proceedings against him. And there can be no reason why jurisdie tion should be denied. The motion for a nonsuit was properly overruled. There was no variance between the plaintiffs’ names in this suit, and the one against Smith. No objection having been made to any of the testimony, at the trial, it is now too late to hear any .

Judgment affirmed,.

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

Jansen v. Stoutenbergh, 9 Johns. 369 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 369 (Jansen v. Stoutenbergh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

International Paper Co. v. Burrill
260 F. 664 (D. Massachusetts, 1919)
Price v. Grant
7 N.Y.S. 904 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1889)
People v. Chapman
61 Cal. 262 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
Nelson J. Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout
35 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1836)
Elliott v. Swartwout
35 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 1836)