Tillotson v. Cheetham

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Tillotson v. Cheetham

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392 (Tillotson v. Cheetham) 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

Tillotson v. Cheetham, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors held that the transcript ought not to be sent back to be amended, but that the Court of Errors itself might amend the record, or award a certiorari to bring up the record from below, and the motion to send back the transcript was denied. (See note to report of this case, 4 J. R 509.)

On the argument of the writ of error, on the merits, the Court of Errors held, that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be reversed, on the ground that the second count of the declaration was essentially defective, and as the plaintiff had judgment on the counts generally, it was error, and the record not susceptible of amendment, so as to cure the defect.

Judgment reversed.

[It was also made a question in the Court of Errors, whether the declaration contained one count only, or two.distinct counts. The court held that there were two counts.]

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

The Court of Errors held that the transcript ought not to be sent back to be amended, but that the Court of Errors itself might amend the record, or award a certiorari to bring up the record from below, and the motion to send back the transcript was denied. (See note to report of this case, 4 J. R 509.)

On the argument of the writ of error, on the merits, the Court of Errors held, that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be reversed, on the ground that the second count of the declaration was essentially defective, and as the plaintiff had judgment on the counts generally, it was error, and the record not susceptible of amendment, so as to cure the defect.

Judgment reversed.

[It was also made a question in the Court of Errors, whether the declaration contained one count only, or two.distinct counts. The court held that there were two counts.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillotson-v-cheetham-nycterr-1799.