Row v. Sherwood

New York Supreme Court

Row v. Sherwood

6 Johns. 109

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1810

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 109 (Row v. Sherwood) 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

Row v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 109 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The justice was sued “for or concerning a matter or thing done by virtue of his office;” and therefore he is entitled to double costs for this “ wrongful vexation.” But, as it appears from the declaration, that the other defendant was sued for maliciously prosecuting the warrant, and not for any act done “ in aid or assistance, or by commandment” of the justice, he is not entitled to double costs. As the defendants separated in their pleas, the costs can be taxed separately, according to their respective rates of allowance.

Van Ness, J. dissented.

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

Per Curiam.

The justice was sued “for or concerning a matter or thing done by virtue of his office;” and therefore he is entitled to double costs for this “ wrongful vexation.” But, as it appears from the declaration, that the other defendant was sued for maliciously prosecuting the warrant, and not for any act done “ in aid or assistance, or by commandment” of the justice, he is not entitled to double costs. As the defendants separated in their pleas, the costs can be taxed separately, according to their respective rates of allowance.

Van Ness, J. dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Johns. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/row-v-sherwood-nysupct-1810.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack