Lackey v. M'Donald

1 Cai. Cas. 116, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 190
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1803·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The opinion of the court is, that sufficient has been shown to prevent the judgment of nonsuit. The defendant has by his own act deprived the plaintiffs of that ^remedy which they might have had [*117] against his person; his body is out of their reach, and that by his own act. It is not, therefore, necessary that they should proceed and incur expenses for nothing, as there is not any property from whence they can be reimbursed. The plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to discontinue, and without costs.

Footnotes

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

Lackey v. M'Donald, 1 Cai. Cas. 116, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 190 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1803).

1 Cai. Cas. 116 (Lackey v. M'Donald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beardsley v. . N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co.
56 N.E. 483 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Jones v. Knauss
31 N.J. Eq. 211 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1879)
Pennell v. Wilson
2 Abb. Pr. 466 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1864)
Park v. Moore
4 Hill & Den. 592 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1843)
Honeywell v. Burns
8 Cow. 121 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)