Spafford v. Griffen

13 Johns. 328
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1816·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The -proviso in the- 11th -section of the act, (1 N. R. L. 393.,) provides, “ that if the defendant shall, on the .‘hearing-bf-the- Cause, prove that he has a family in this state, for. which he provides, and is. not a.freehblder, then the justice shall, at the time of. issuing execution, endorsé such proof thereon,” which shall exempt the defendant from Imprisonment, upon his paying'by monthly instalments, &c, /

It appears that the justice, -id this casé, improperly refused to endorsé that proof upon the execution; but his mistake, or misconduct, in not making thát endorsement, is no ground, for " reversing the judgment. ' Whether an action will lie against the justice, or the plaintiff below, for that omission, is-a question not now before us,. (Percival v. Jones, 2 Johns. Cas. 49.,) • - ,

Judgment aiFfrnied.

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

Spafford v. Griffen, 13 Johns. 328 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

13 Johns. 328 (Spafford v. Griffen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Percival v. Jones
2 Johns. Cas. 49 (New York Supreme Court, 1800)