Smith v. Sutts
2 Johns. 9
Opinion
Thére being a default of jurors, the plaintiÉT below, required a.venire de novo; the justice declined granting it, and nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground of his default in not paying a tales de circumstantibus, and also adjudged costs against'him. The non-suit was compulsory, and the plaintiff below is aggrieved by the costs. If a party be nonsuited, and a judgment be given against him for costs, error lies. The' judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed,.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Sutts, 2 Johns. 9 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).
2 Johns. 9 (Smith v. Sutts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Potter v. Mellen
30 N.W. 438 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1886)
Countryman v. Lighthill
31 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 405 (New York Supreme Court, 1881)
Walker v. Lovell
28 N.H. 138 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Barthelemy & De Bouillon v. People
2 Hill & Den. 248 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)
De Veer v. Stanton
1 Cow. 84 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)