Seward v. Van Wyck

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Seward v. Van Wyck

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 175

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 175 (Seward v. Van Wyck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seward v. Van Wyck, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 175 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors reversed the judgment; Stebbins, Spencer, and Allen, senators, who"read opinions, all concurred that the deed was not fraudulent in law. Jones, Chancellor, in an elaborate and able opinion, discusses the form of the special verdict, which instead of finding facts, had found all the evidence in the case as their special verdict; and though he evidently concurs with these senators that the deed is not fraudulent in law, and was in favor of sustaining it, yet he concludes: “ I am therefore constrained to declare that I can not decide the question of law raised by the parties upon this special verdict. It is radically and substantially defective, and its defects are in my judgment, incurable in this court. The proper course in such cases appears to me, to reverse the judgment. ”

Judgment reversed.

Sée to same effect, Rogers v. Eagle Fire Company of N. Y. 9 Wend. 611.

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

The Court of Errors reversed the judgment; Stebbins, Spencer, and Allen, senators, who"read opinions, all concurred that the deed was not fraudulent in law. Jones, Chancellor, in an elaborate and able opinion, discusses the form of the special verdict, which instead of finding facts, had found all the evidence in the case as their special verdict; and though he evidently concurs with these senators that the deed is not fraudulent in law, and was in favor of sustaining it, yet he concludes: “ I am therefore constrained to declare that I can not decide the question of law raised by the parties upon this special verdict. It is radically and substantially defective, and its defects are in my judgment, incurable in this court. The proper course in such cases appears to me, to reverse the judgment. ”

Judgment reversed.

Sée to same effect, Rogers v. Eagle Fire Company of N. Y. 9 Wend. 611.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seward-v-van-wyck-nycterr-1799.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack