Palmer v. Green

Decided April 15, 1799

New York Supreme Court · decided 1799-04-15

In error on certiorari to a justice’s court. In this case several causes were assigned for error, but the following were' principally relied upon, and no other was noticed by the court. 1. That- the plaintiff in error, who was defendant below, pleaded two pleas in the action before the justice, to one of which the plaintiff below did not reply, and no issue was t’aken upon it. 2.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1829

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1799-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*Per Curiam.

¶1With respect to the first objection, [*102] it appears that the first plea of the defendant below was a plea in chief to the merits of the action, and the second a plea in abatement which was not answered. The plea in abatement after a plea in chief was a nullity, and not necessary to be answéred. But the second objection is fatal. A justice has no authority, by the ten pound act, to adjourn the trial beyond six days, without the consent of the parties. The defendant below did not consent, nor did he appear at the trial.(a)

¶2Judgment reversed.

¶3 Generally upon the subject of adjournment in justice’s courts: See 2 R. S. 169,170,171 ; 2 Cowen’s Treat. 3d edit. 289-309.