Proudfit v. Henman & Henman

New York Supreme Court

Proudfit v. Henman & Henman

8 Johns. 391

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 391 (Proudfit v. Henman & Henman) 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

Proudfit v. Henman & Henman, 8 Johns. 391 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The last adjournment was without proof of any consent by the defendant. It was upon the suggestion of the plaintiffs, and without authority. The plaintiffs did not show that they had used due diligence to procure the attendance of the absent witness, nor at what distance he lived. There is no provision in the act [392]*392giviiig to the magistrate unlimited discretion to adjourn, for any length of time, upon the suggestion, and at the pleasure of the plaintiff. This adjournment amounted to a discontinuance, and the cause was out pf court.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The last adjournment was without proof of any consent by the defendant. It was upon the suggestion of the plaintiffs, and without authority. The plaintiffs did not show that they had used due diligence to procure the attendance of the absent witness, nor at what distance he lived. There is no provision in the act [392]*392giviiig to the magistrate unlimited discretion to adjourn, for any length of time, upon the suggestion, and at the pleasure of the plaintiff. This adjournment amounted to a discontinuance, and the cause was out pf court.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Johns. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proudfit-v-henman-henman-nysupct-1811.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack