Van Slyck v. Taylor

New York Supreme Court

Van Slyck v. Taylor

9 Johns. 146

DecidedMay 15, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Johns. 146 (Van Slyck v. Taylor) 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

Van Slyck v. Taylor, 9 Johns. 146 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The objection now raised against the admission of parol proof of the execution, comes too late; it would have been valid, had it been made on the trial, but no such objection appears to have been made, and we cannot intend, for the purpose of reversing a judgment, that this framed the ground of the motion of a nonsuit. All intendments ought to be in support of the judgment. The constable doubtless acted in good faith, and in obedience to what he supposed competent authority, in discharging Minkler, yet this will not excuse him. The justice had no authority, in his official character, to order the prisoner discharged, and no special power for that purpose appears to have been given by the plaintiff in the execution. It was, therefore, an act altogether unauthorized, and will not excuse the constable.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The objection now raised against the admission of parol proof of the execution, comes too late; it would have been valid, had it been made on the trial, but no such objection appears to have been made, and we cannot intend, for the purpose of reversing a judgment, that this framed the ground of the motion of a nonsuit. All intendments ought to be in support of the judgment. The constable doubtless acted in good faith, and in obedience to what he supposed competent authority, in discharging Minkler, yet this will not excuse him. The justice had no authority, in his official character, to order the prisoner discharged, and no special power for that purpose appears to have been given by the plaintiff in the execution. It was, therefore, an act altogether unauthorized, and will not excuse the constable.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Johns. 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-slyck-v-taylor-nysupct-1812.