Kellogg v. Mauncy

2 Johns. 378
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1807·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question is, whether the declaration of the plaintiff below was fully proved. The certificate of the former judgment, which was produced, and iiot objected to, tvas prima facie evidence, at least, of the existence of the judgment; and as this evidence was not Contradicted or questioned by the' defendant below, it must be considered as sufficient to support the judgment.-

Judgment affirmed;

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

Kellogg v. Mauncy, 2 Johns. 378 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

2 Johns. 378 (Kellogg v. Mauncy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Komp v. . Raymond
67 N.E. 113 (New York Court of Appeals, 1903)
Thorman v. Polya
20 N.Y.S. 689 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Egleston v. Knickerbacker
6 Barb. 458 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Weed v. Snow
29 F. Cas. 572 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan, 1843)
Giddings v. Munson
4 Vt. 308 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1827)
M'Carroll's Lessee v. Weaks
2 Tenn. 215 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1814)
M'carrol's Lessee v. Weeks
6 Tenn. 246 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1814)