People v. Onondaga Common Pleas

1 Wend. 314
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The submission of all suits and controversies to arbitration, is a discontinuance of a suit depending in court, where there is no provision made for its continuance by authorizing a rule for judgment on the award, (6 Cowen, 399 ; 18 Johns. R, 22;) bat the party who might have insisted on the discontinuance, was competent to waive it; and, in this case, it was waived by the defendant’s counsel appearing at the trial, cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses, and addressing the jury. As to the terms imposed, upon granting a new trial, those rested in the discretion of the common pleas, with the exercise of which this court never interferes. Motion denied, with costs.

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

People v. Onondaga Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 314 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

1 Wend. 314 (People v. Onondaga Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Laflin v. Chicago, W. & N. Ry. Co.
34 F. 859 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1887)
Callanan v. Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Co.
27 N.W. 718 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
McNulty v. . Solley
95 N.Y. 242 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Paulison v. Halsey
38 N.J.L. 488 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1875)
Bucklin v. Chapin
53 Barb. 488 (New York Supreme Court, 1868)
Buel v. Dewey
22 How. Pr. 342 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Crooker v. Buck
41 Me. 355 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1856)
Dolph v. Clemens
4 Wis. 181 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1856)
Vanderhoof v. Dean
1 Mich. 463 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1850)
Ressequie v. Brownson
4 Barb. 541 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Smith v. Barse
2 Hill & Den. 387 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)
Larkin v. Robbins
2 Wend. 505 (New York Supreme Court, 1829)