Maye v. Carbery

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Maye v. Carbery

16 F. Cas. 1229, 2 D.C. 336, 2 Cranch 336

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 15, 1822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 F. Cas. 1229 (Maye v. Carbery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maye v. Carbery, 16 F. Cas. 1229, 2 D.C. 336, 2 Cranch 336 (circtddc 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(iiem. con.) decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment by default, under the 15th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, [1 Stat. at Large, 73,] because he had not given notice of a motion to the Court for an order to compel the defendant to produce the paper. And that the plaintiff must lay the foundation for his secondary evidence, by satisfying the Court by his own affidavit, or otherwise, that the original once existed, and that it was not in his power to produce it.

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

The Court

(iiem. con.) decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment by default, under the 15th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, [1 Stat. at Large, 73,] because he had not given notice of a motion to the Court for an order to compel the defendant to produce the paper. And that the plaintiff must lay the foundation for his secondary evidence, by satisfying the Court by his own affidavit, or otherwise, that the original once existed, and that it was not in his power to produce it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 1229, 2 D.C. 336, 2 Cranch 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maye-v-carbery-circtddc-1822.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack