Tyler v. Olney

New York Supreme Court

Tyler v. Olney

12 Johns. 378

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1815

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 378 (Tyler v. Olney) 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

Tyler v. Olney, 12 Johns. 378 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

Per.Curiam.

It would be the height of injustice to sustain • this judgment-. It may be questioned whether the suit was not discontinued and pfft of court.; butif not, - the justice- was bound. [379]*379to postpone the trial, as he had a right to-do, not exceeding six days, he having misled the defendant. Whether Durand was authorized to appear, was not made a question; the justice recognised him as the agent or attorney of the defendant; if he had disputed his authority, he should have' required the proof of it. The judgment must be reversed.. ' ■

Judgment reverse^.

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

Per.Curiam.

It would be the height of injustice to sustain • this judgment-. It may be questioned whether the suit was not discontinued and pfft of court.; butif not, - the justice- was bound. [379]*379to postpone the trial, as he had a right to-do, not exceeding six days, he having misled the defendant. Whether Durand was authorized to appear, was not made a question; the justice recognised him as the agent or attorney of the defendant; if he had disputed his authority, he should have' required the proof of it. The judgment must be reversed.. ' ■

Judgment reverse^.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Johns. 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-olney-nysupct-1815.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack