Proudfit v. Henman & Henman

8 Johns. 391
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1811·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] giviiig 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

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

8 Johns. 391 (Proudfit v. Henman & Henman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stoutenburg v. Humphrey
9 A.D. 27 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Austin v. . Vrooman
28 N.E. 477 (New York Court of Appeals, 1891)
Stadler v. Moors
9 Mich. 264 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1861)
Mayor of New York v. Husson
2 Hilt. 7 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1858)