Pierce v. Sheldon
13 Johns. 191
Opinion
Whether the justice was legally disqualified, on the ground that the plaintiff below was his son-in-law, is, perhaps, questionable ; but the gross indecency of an exercise of his judicial power, in such a case, should induce this court to scrutinize his proceedings with a jealous eye.
This suit was brought under the 13th section of the 25 dollar act, (1 R.L. 395.,) which provides a remedy, expressly, (i by action of debt” The objection to the form of action was, therefore, well taken, and the judgment ought to be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pierce v. Sheldon, 13 Johns. 191 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).
13 Johns. 191 (Pierce v. Sheldon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People ex rel. Lawrence v. Mann
39 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 440 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Place v. Butternuts Woolen & Cotton Manufacturing Co.
28 Barb. 503 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Sanborn v. Fellows
22 N.H. 473 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1851)
Allen v. Bruce
12 N.H. 418 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1841)
Whicher v. Whicher
11 N.H. 348 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1840)
Gear v. Smith
9 N.H. 63 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1837)