Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Cow. 165

Baker v. Taylor

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1823

New York Supreme Court · decided 1823-08-15

T. J. Oakley, for the defendant, moved for a rule staying the plaintiff perpetually from issuing a ca. sa. in this cause. A verdict in assumpsit had been given for the plaintiff, in 1819. The rule for judgment was not entered till May term, 1833, when the judgment was perfected, and a Jifa. issued thereon.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1888

4 state decisions

201823183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Curia.

¶1The discharge was too late to admit of its being pleaded puis darrein continuance. This could no more be done than if judgment had been signed. In the latter case the uniform practice is to discharge upon motion. The case of Baker v. Judges of Ulster, in the 4th John. Rep. 191, is substantially this case. Here is nothing alleged against the discharge. Should the plaintiff object fraud, or other ground impeaching its validity, we might then open the cause, so far as to give him a chance to try this question, leaving the judgment, in the mean time, to stand as security.

¶2Motion granted.(a)

¶3Vid. Palmer v. Hutchins, ante, 42.

/1/cow/165 · .json · Public domain