Saril v. Payne

New York Court of Common Pleas

Saril v. Payne

4 N.Y.S. 897, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 486, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedApril 1, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 N.Y.S. 897 (Saril v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saril v. Payne, 4 N.Y.S. 897, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 486, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question raised upon this appeal is one of jurisdiction and not of irregularity. The affidavit upon which the order of arrest was granted was the basis of the judge’s action. If defective, the proceeding must fall. The lack of venue has been decided to make an affidavit a nullity. Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 63; Lane v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. 394; Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. 407; Vincent v. People, 5 Parker, Crim. R. 88; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87. The case of Cook v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150, allowed an amendment to a confession of judgment where the venue was omitted, but we do not think this rule should be extended, in the absence of any authority /upon the subject, in cases where personal liberty is involved. We think, ¡upon the authority of the court of appeals already expressed, that leave to make a further appeal to them upon this subject is entirely unnecessary, as the decisions cited clearly show what would be the ultimate result of such application.

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

Per Curiam.

The question raised upon this appeal is one of jurisdiction and not of irregularity. The affidavit upon which the order of arrest was granted was the basis of the judge’s action. If defective, the proceeding must fall. The lack of venue has been decided to make an affidavit a nullity. Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 63; Lane v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. 394; Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. 407; Vincent v. People, 5 Parker, Crim. R. 88; Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. 87. The case of Cook v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150, allowed an amendment to a confession of judgment where the venue was omitted, but we do not think this rule should be extended, in the absence of any authority /upon the subject, in cases where personal liberty is involved. We think, ¡upon the authority of the court of appeals already expressed, that leave to make a further appeal to them upon this subject is entirely unnecessary, as the decisions cited clearly show what would be the ultimate result of such application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.Y.S. 897, 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 486, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saril-v-payne-nyctcompl-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack