Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cow. 499

Whitney v. Warner

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1824

New York Supreme Court · decided 1824-02-15

On certiorari -to a Justice’s Court. The affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed, was entitled and began thus : “ Justice’s Court. George Whitney ads. William Warner Sf j Peter Crissey. j Before James Squires, Esquire, one of the Justices of the Peace of the county of Broome, 8th December, 1823. ' Broome County, ss.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1849

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1824-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Curia.

¶1Where there is0no suit pending, but the affidavit is 'to be used as the foundation of a suit, it should not be entitled in any cause. This is the case of affidavits to ground a motion .for a mandamus, an information, or, (in England,) to hold the defendant to bail. But we see no objection to entitling the affidavit in the suit in the Court below. . The statute, (1 R. L. 396, s. 17,) requires the party applying for *501a certiorari to make affidavit satisfying the Judge or commissioner who allows it, that there is reasonable cause for granting it, for error in the judgment below, which shall be specilied in such affidavit. This is properly a proceeding in the Court below. If entitled in the Supreme Court, it would have been irregular, according to the case of Haight v. Turner, cited on the part of the defendant.

¶2As to the second objection, it is enough that the statute expressly declares that the affidavit may be taken before any person authorized to take affidavits to be read in the Supreme Court.

¶3Motion denied.

/2/cow/499 · .json · Public domain