Savage v. Pierpoint

New York Supreme Court

Savage v. Pierpoint

3 Cai. Cas. 106, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 462

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 106 (Savage v. Pierpoint) 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

Savage v. Pierpoint, 3 Cai. Cas. 106, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 462 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

We are all of opinion that you can take nothing by your motion. There would be no limitation to this kind of practice. It would be asked in every cause, and in every stage. A verdict is no evidence of right; in many cases no more than filing the declaration. To the country at large such a principle would operate very injuriously. In the English courts such a measure has never been attempted, though from the practice of directing, in important cases, two and even three arguments, the delay must sometimes be very great. It is a mere matter of possibility where t he justice of the case is. To make a rule here, we mu-.t do so in all cases, and the result would be, that wherever there was a certificate to stay proceedings, it would be followed by a judgment. The plaintiffs shew no right to the debt, though it may be due, and as to the sum, 100 dollars to some persons, are of as much importance as 1000 dollars to others. We therefore deny the application, with costs for resisting.

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

Per curiam.

We are all of opinion that you can take nothing by your motion. There would be no limitation to this kind of practice. It would be asked in every cause, and in every stage. A verdict is no evidence of right; in many cases no more than filing the declaration. To the country at large such a principle would operate very injuriously. In the English courts such a measure has never been attempted, though from the practice of directing, in important cases, two and even three arguments, the delay must sometimes be very great. It is a mere matter of possibility where t he justice of the case is. To make a rule here, we mu-.t do so in all cases, and the result would be, that wherever there was a certificate to stay proceedings, it would be followed by a judgment. The plaintiffs shew no right to the debt, though it may be due, and as to the sum, 100 dollars to some persons, are of as much importance as 1000 dollars to others. We therefore deny the application, with costs for resisting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 106, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savage-v-pierpoint-nysupct-1805.