People ex rel Tremper v. Judges & Supervisors of the County of Ulster

1 Johns. 64
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is not requisite that we should go through ■ the process and delay of rules and attachments, in order to compel a return to the first mandamus. The alternative in it, was intended for the benefit and.convenience of defendants. As the first writ has been regularly served, we may, at. our discretion, order a peremptory mandamus; but as the defendants may not have had a sufficient time to meet together and make their return, we are disposed to allow them a further day for that purpose.

The counsel, thereupon, agreed on the 15th day of April; and the court ..ordered, that if the return was not made on that day, the relator might sue out a peremptory mandamus.

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

People ex rel Tremper v. Judges & Supervisors of the County of Ulster, 1 Johns. 64 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 64 (People ex rel Tremper v. Judges & Supervisors of the County of Ulster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. Assessors of Taxes
17 A. 122 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1889)
State ex rel. Drury v. Supervisors of Lincoln
30 N.W. 360 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1886)
Fisher v. Mayor of Charleston
17 W. Va. 628 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1881)
State ex rel. Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Pennsylvania Railroad
41 N.J.L. 250 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1879)
State v. . Jones
23 N.C. 129 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1840)
People ex rel. Bristol v. Pearson
3 Ill. 189 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1839)
People ex rel. Knapp v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas
4 Cow. 73 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)