Morrell v. Near

Decided May 15, 1823

New York Supreme Court · decided 1823-05-15

Certiorari from a Justice's Court. this case, one objection to the proceedings, in the Court below, was, that the trial was had at a place different from that at which the summons was returnable ; though the process was returned, and the parties appeared at the time and place of return, and accompanied the Justice to the-P^ace °f : and Case v. Van Ness,(a) and Stewart v.. Meigs,(b) were relied upon, in support of the objection,

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1912

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The process having been returned, at the place where it was returnable, and both parties appearing there, the *fus^ce had a right to adjourn the trial of the cause to any oth*113er convenient place, without the consent of the parties. But, in this case, the parlies did assent, by not objecting, and by accompanying the Justice. The authorities relied upon are very different from this case. In Case v. Van Ness, it did not appear where the Court was held, and the judgment was by default. The Court would not intend that the trial was at the place where the process was returnable. If not, then the defendant may have appeared in pursuance of the process. In Stewart v. Meigs, the process was returned and the trial had, at a place different from that mentioned in the process, though the defendant did not appear.

¶2Judgment affirmed.