Vanduzen v. Weller

New York Supreme Court

Vanduzen v. Weller

5 Johns. 231

DecidedNovember 15, 1809

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Johns. 231 (Vanduzen v. Weller) 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

Vanduzen v. Weller, 5 Johns. 231 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rule of practice is explicit. On the return of the habeas corpus, the plaintiff’s attorney must enter a rule for the appearance of the defendant in twenty days, or that a procedendo issue, and serve a [232]*232notice of the rule on the defendant, or his attorney. He cannot proceed, as if the suit was originally commenced in this court, and file bail for the defendant, according to the statute.

Rule refused'.'

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

Per Curiam.

The rule of practice is explicit. On the return of the habeas corpus, the plaintiff’s attorney must enter a rule for the appearance of the defendant in twenty days, or that a procedendo issue, and serve a [232]*232notice of the rule on the defendant, or his attorney. He cannot proceed, as if the suit was originally commenced in this court, and file bail for the defendant, according to the statute.

Rule refused'.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Johns. 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanduzen-v-weller-nysupct-1809.