Mott v. Jerome
This text of 7 Cow. 518 (Mott v. Jerome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
said they could not grant the motion, because it was not shown what was the proof on which the orders . . r were made by the commissioner. For aught that appears, a plain case of fraud may have been made out before him. If so, the statute, (sess. 42, p. 117, s. 3,) warrants this order; and the court must, till the contrary appear, mtend that the commissioner acted on competent proof.
*But they said, if the affidavit before the commissioner had been shown, and seen to be insufficient, they would have granted the discharge: as if it had contained a mere general allegation of fraud, or a belief of fraud in the discharge, without setting forth facts which would amount to probable cause for such belief.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 Cow. 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mott-v-jerome-nysupct-1827.