Reed v. Gillet

New York Supreme Court

Reed v. Gillet

12 Johns. 296

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1815

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 296 (Reed v. Gillet) 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

Reed v. Gillet, 12 Johns. 296 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This judgment must be affirmed. The defendant below not having appeared upon the service of a copy of the summons, it was regular in the justice to issue a warrant; and to have given judgment without issuing another summons, or a warrant, would have been erroneous. Nor is there any weight in the other objection, although the justice may not have assigned a good reason for overruling it. The objection was not that Justice Parties had not been superseded, but that he was not a magistrate when he rendered the judgment, upon which the present suit was founded. The judgment was proved by the magistrate before whom it was obtained, in a manner not objected to, and which was equivalent to an admission of the judgment. This was, at least, prima facie evidence of the authority of Parties to render such judgment; and it would not be necessary, upon an action founded on that judgment, which remained in full force, to show that the person before whom it was obtained was a magistrate.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This judgment must be affirmed. The defendant below not having appeared upon the service of a copy of the summons, it was regular in the justice to issue a warrant; and to have given judgment without issuing another summons, or a warrant, would have been erroneous. Nor is there any weight in the other objection, although the justice may not have assigned a good reason for overruling it. The objection was not that Justice Parties had not been superseded, but that he was not a magistrate when he rendered the judgment, upon which the present suit was founded. The judgment was proved by the magistrate before whom it was obtained, in a manner not objected to, and which was equivalent to an admission of the judgment. This was, at least, prima facie evidence of the authority of Parties to render such judgment; and it would not be necessary, upon an action founded on that judgment, which remained in full force, to show that the person before whom it was obtained was a magistrate.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Johns. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-gillet-nysupct-1815.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack