Millard v. Whitaker

5 Hill & Den. 408
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1843·Published

Opinion

Bronson, J.

As the judgment on which the plaintiff sued was recovered prior to 1830, the present statute of limitations has nothing to do with the case. (Fairbanks v. Wood, 17 Wend. 329.) This is not the first time that the marginal note to that case has led to error. (Johnson v. Burrill, 2 Hill, 238.) As twenty years had not run upon the judgment, the action was in time.

The second judgment was of no higher nature than the first, and there was consequently no extinguishment. (Preston v. Perton, Cro. Eliz. 817; Andrews v. Smith, 9 Wend. 53, and the cases there cited.) There must be a venire de novo.

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

Millard v. Whitaker, 5 Hill & Den. 408 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1843).

5 Hill & Den. 408 (Millard v. Whitaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McGuinty v. Herrick
5 Wend. 240 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)
Andrews v. Smith
9 Wend. 53 (New York Supreme Court, 1832)
Fairbanks v. Wood
17 Wend. 329 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)