People v. Judges of Washington Common Pleas

New York Supreme Court

People v. Judges of Washington Common Pleas

1 Wend. 79

DecidedAugust 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wend. 79 (People v. Judges of Washington Common Pleas) 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 v. Judges of Washington Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 79 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The court of common pleas had no jurisdiction of the matter, nor did they possess the power on summary application of this kind, to inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. The jurisdiction of the common pleas, in such cases, is confined to the process of execution sued out on (he judgments, which, issuing under the seal of the court, is subject to the control of the court; and for any abuse in the suing out of the process, or irregularity in its execution, the common pleas have a right to interfere. (3 Cowen, 506. 5 Cowen, 31.) But they cannot inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. In this case, there is no complaint in reference to the execution. The court of common pleas were correct in refusing the motion, and the mandamus is accordingly denied.

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

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The court of common pleas had no jurisdiction of the matter, nor did they possess the power on summary application of this kind, to inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. The jurisdiction of the common pleas, in such cases, is confined to the process of execution sued out on (he judgments, which, issuing under the seal of the court, is subject to the control of the court; and for any abuse in the suing out of the process, or irregularity in its execution, the common pleas have a right to interfere. (3 Cowen, 506. 5 Cowen, 31.) But they cannot inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. In this case, there is no complaint in reference to the execution. The court of common pleas were correct in refusing the motion, and the mandamus is accordingly denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wend. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-judges-of-washington-common-pleas-nysupct-1828.