Shepherd v. Case

1 Cole. Cas. 90
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1800
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cole. Cas. 90 (Shepherd v. Case) 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
Shepherd v. Case, 1 Cole. Cas. 90 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The true conftruftion of the 4th Rule of January Term, 1799, is,

Fir ft, That the notice of a motion, accompanied by a Judge’s certificate is a fubftitute for the former practice of a Rule to Jhew caufe, and therefore if the party neglefts to obtain a certificate, the con-fequence is, that if, when the hearing is to come on, judgment be duly entered, he cannot be heard on his motion. We will not hear an argument to fefc afide a verdi£1, default, or inquifition, after judgment duly entered.

Secondly, There is nothing in our Rules to prevent a party diflatisfied with the refufal of a judge to grant a certificate, to apply to the Court. The defendant is not therefore ftriólly entitled to be heard, but as there appears to have been a mifcon-ftru&ion of the rule, we will, in tha prefent xn-ftance, open the caufe and hear the motion.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Cole. Cas. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shepherd-v-case-nysupct-1800.