People ex rel. Hale v. Onondaga C. P.

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Hale v. Onondaga C. P.

3 Wend. 304

DecidedOctober 15, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Wend. 304 (People ex rel. Hale v. Onondaga C. P.) 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.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Hale v. Onondaga C. P., 3 Wend. 304 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Marcy, J.

This case is distinguishable from that of The People v. Jefferson C. P. (2Wend. 301.) There the parties opposing the mandamus had done no act [305]*305beyond resisting the issuing of a peremptory mandamus on the coming in of the return; here the party opposing applied for a rule on the relators to plead or demur, and on being served with a demurrer put in a rejoinder. He thereby became an actor in the suit, and must be responsible for the costs, which he is ordered to pay, or to shew cause by the first day of the next term.

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

By the Court,

Marcy, J.

This case is distinguishable from that of The People v. Jefferson C. P. (2Wend. 301.) There the parties opposing the mandamus had done no act [305]*305beyond resisting the issuing of a peremptory mandamus on the coming in of the return; here the party opposing applied for a rule on the relators to plead or demur, and on being served with a demurrer put in a rejoinder. He thereby became an actor in the suit, and must be responsible for the costs, which he is ordered to pay, or to shew cause by the first day of the next term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Wend. 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-hale-v-onondaga-c-p-nysupct-1829.