Morrell v. Near

1 Cow. 112
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The process having been returned, at the place where it was returnable, and both parties appearing there, the *fus^ce had a right to adjourn the trial of the cause to any oth[113]*113er convenient place, without the consent of the parties. But, in this case, the parlies did assent, by not objecting, and by accompanying the Justice. The authorities relied upon are very different from this case. In Case v. Van Ness, it did not appear where the Court was held, and the judgment was by default. The Court would not intend that the trial was at the place where the process was returnable. If not, then the defendant may have appeared in pursuance of the process. In Stewart v. Meigs, the process was returned and the trial had, at a place different from that mentioned in the process, though the defendant did not appear.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Morrell v. Near, 1 Cow. 112 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

1 Cow. 112 (Morrell v. Near) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

William H. Henry & Co. v. Fry
78 Misc. 130 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Brakeley v. Tuttle
3 W. Va. 86 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1868)
United States v. Rundlett
27 F. Cas. 915 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire, 1854)