2 Johns. 182
Decided February 15, 1807
New York Supreme Court · decided 1807-02-15
EMOTT moved for a rule requiring the justice tp amend; his return to the certiorari in this cause. He read affidavits stating a number of facts to which the plaintiffs in error wished the justice to answer, but which were no.t stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1883
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1807-02-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1If the justice returns precisely and specifically as to all the facts stated in the affidavit on which the certiorari was allowed, it is enough. The law has, in this respect, given a sufficient remedy to the party aggrieved. It would be inconvenient to require the ju s tice to answer to supplementary affidavits.
¶2Motion denied.