People v. Tioga Common Pleas

1 Wend. 291
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1828·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The common pleas erred, and an alternative mandamus would have been granted, had the affidavit not been entitled. It is the settled practice of this court, that on a motion for a mandamus, the affidavit must not be entitled. The reason is, that at the lime of the [292] making of the affidavit, there is no cause pending in this court; and an indictment for perjury in making such an affidavit must fail, as it could not be shown that such a cause existed in the court in which the affidavit was made. (2 Johns. R. 373.)

Motion denied.

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

People v. Tioga Common Pleas, 1 Wend. 291 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

1 Wend. 291 (People v. Tioga Common Pleas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hall v. Union Pac. R.
11 F. Cas. 268 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Iowa, 1875)
Chumasero v. Potts
2 Mont. 242 (Montana Supreme Court, 1875)
People ex rel. Cagger v. Supervisors of Schuyler
2 Abb. Pr. 78 (New York Supreme Court, 1866)
Chance v. Temple
1 Iowa 179 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1855)
People ex rel. Coleman v. Dikeman
7 How. Pr. 124 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Milliken v. Selye
3 Denio 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)
Fish v. Weatherwax
2 Johns. Cas. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)