Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Cow. 95

People v. Clark

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1825

New York Supreme Court · decided 1825-02-15

In February term, 1824, the Attorney General obtained leave to file an information against the defendant in nature of a quo warranto, to which the defendant appeared and pleaded. ■ The Attorney General demurred specially to the plea, entered the usual common rule, to loin in demurrer, ' and served a copy or demurrer upon the defendant’s attomey, with notice of the common rule so entered.1 The defendant’s attorney thereupon entered the usual common rule to amend his plea,…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1869

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1825-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Curia.

¶1We see no reason why' the parties should not proceed according to the general rules and practice of the Court as to pleading, amending, <fcc. We are referred to no case which is against this. The Attorney General entered a common rule to join in demurrer, and we "think rightly ; and that the defendant was right in entering his common rule to amend. The Attorney General may take the rule which he asks, and proceed against the defendant upon an amended information. The defendant may plead to this de novo.

¶2Rule accordingly.

¶3Note. The Attorney General mentioned to the Court the case of The King v. Glemmon, in 2 Rolle’s Rep. 41, where it was held that the defendant could not change his plea without the consent of the King’s attorney, if a term had *97arrived since the plea was put in; though the King had altered the pleadings on his part; But,

¶4The Court said they never should hold a defendant to all the strictness of that case.

/4/cow/95 · .json · Public domain