Rose v. Stuyvesant

8 Johns. 426
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 426 (Rose v. Stuyvesant) 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
Rose v. Stuyvesant, 8 Johns. 426 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only point is about the regularity of refusing the adjournment. Another point was made, that the justice refused to admit the father to defend; but the return does not justify this objection.

Under the second section of the act, the justice had a" discretion, on the non-appearance of the defendant below, to put off the hearing of the cause, to such reasonable time, as he should appoint, not exceeding six days. (sess. 31. c. 204.)

This discretion is not an arbitrary one: it ought to be soundly and judiciously exercised. The situation of Rose's child was such as ought to have induced the justice to put off the trial. We are of opinion, therefore^ that the judgment ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Ontario Knitting Co. v. State
69 Misc. 145 (New York State Court of Claims, 1910)
Earnshaw v. United States
146 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court, 1892)
Erickson v. Willard
1 N.H. 217 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1818)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Johns. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-stuyvesant-nysupct-1811.