Rue v. Sprague & Consaulis

1 Johns. 510
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

The proceedings were under the 20 th section of the act, which directs, that the penalty is to be recovered in the manner providedby the ISthsection, where it is said that the penalty is to be recovered in the name of the person who makes the complaint. And according to' our decision in the case of Bennett and Ward, the suit [511] should, have been prosecuted under the !§25 act. One of r the plaintiffs was sworn as a witness, and though a mere trustee, he was liable for costs, and so far interested. On both these grounds judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Footnotes

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

Rue v. Sprague & Consaulis, 1 Johns. 510 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 510 (Rue v. Sprague & Consaulis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Croker v. New York Trust Co.
156 N.E. 81 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Jordan, Ellis & Co. v. James
5 Ohio 88 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1831)