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

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided October 15, 1822·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

16 F. Cas. 1229 (Maye v. Carbery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related