Thomas v. Croswell
This text of 4 Johns. 491 (Thomas v. Croswell) 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.
Opinion
In the cases of Spencer v. Sampson, and Foot v. Croswell, (1 Caines, 489.) Livingston v. Cheetham, (1 Johns. Rep. 61.) and Van Vechten v. Hopkins, (2 Johns. Rep. 373.) the rule was settled, that unless it appears, that the plaintiff was libelled for his official conduct, in some important public trust, we will not grant a special jury; In the present case, though the plaintiff was at the time, a representative in congress, and major-general of the militia of the state, yet it does not appear that he was libelled for any conduct in either of those official characters.
The motion must, therefore, be denied.
Rule refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Johns. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-croswell-nysupct-1809.