Wood v. Bulkley

13 Johns. 486
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

jThemotion foranew trial must bedenied. There was no material Variance between the note set out in the declaration, and the one produced in evidence. The signature of the defendant, by the abbreviation of Christ, for- Christopher, was proved to be the usual and ordinary way in which he signed hisnaine. According to the case, there is, in point of fact, no variance between the nisi prius record, and the copy of the deelation, as served off th'e defendant, even if such proof could have been admissible,: But this was 'not matter that could be inquired into Upon the trial The' judge at the circuit must be governed by the nisi prius record, and any variance,' if material, must be made the subject of an application to the court, and the verdict would, no doubt, be set aside, if the defendant was pee-' judiced by such variance. But no such variance appears to-exist in this case, according to the defendant’s own allegation.

New trial denied.'

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

Wood v. Bulkley, 13 Johns. 486 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

13 Johns. 486 (Wood v. Bulkley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The People v. Brothers
180 N.E. 442 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1932)
Litzenberger v. Litzenberger
99 Misc. 572 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Lester v. Hays
38 S.W. 52 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Robbins
43 N.E. 332 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Danes v. Pearson
33 N.E. 976 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Campanelli v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
39 N.Y. St. Rep. 274 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1891)
Lasselle v. Hewson
5 Blackf. 161 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1839)
Den ex dem. Vandersdalen v. Hull
9 N.J.L. 278 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1827)
Greely v. Steele
2 N.H. 284 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1820)