¶1There can be little doubt that the writ was allowed at the March special term, on the supposition that the action before the justice was assumpsit on a promissory note, and the judgment in trover for boots and shoes. If such had been the fact, there would have been error in those parts of the proceedings, which are in the nature of a record, and a common law certiorari might have been an available remedy. "But it now clearly appears that the action was trover from beginning to end; and the only question which can be made, is, whether there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment. Such a question can not be reached by a common law certiorari, and it would be worse than useless to go on with the litigation. Motion granted.
1 How. Pr. 141
Brown v. Wesson
Decided April 15, 1845
New York Supreme Court · decided 1845-04-15
Motion by defendants in error to quash a common law certiorari.— On the 7th March last, this court granted a common law certiorari in this cause, on the ex parte application of plaintiffs in error; said certiorari was directed to the common pleas of Chenango county; the motion was founded on the affidavit of Nelson Brown, one of the plaintiffs in error: to which was annexed the papers used in the common pleas on motion to set aside the execution issued by the clerk of…
Decided 1845-04-15