Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Johns. 548

Rudd v. Baker

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1811

New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-02-15

IN error, on certiorari$ from a justice’s court. A motion was made on the part of the defendant, that the additional return of the justice be received, An affidavit of the attorney for the defendant was read, stating, that until after joinder in error, he did not ^now t^iat t^le return of the justice was incorrect.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1909

5 state decisions

301811182018301840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1We cannot grant the motion. The justice since he made the supplementary return annexed to the notice of the motion, has made another, and declares in that return, that the supplementary return was drawn in haste, and is incorrect, and that the first return is most correct. It is impossible to know the truth in a case in which the magistrate acts so inconsistently, and appears tobe so weak in mind as to he at the power of the party who last advises him. The court have no alternative; .but must reject both supplementary returns, and deny the motion; but in doing it, they express their strong disapprobation of the practice of preparing returns for a justice, without his knowledge and request, and that too by the party suing out the certiorari. If this case was not so extraordinary as to render any further attempt at a new return dangerous, the court would be disposed to suppress the first return altogether.

¶2Motion denied.

/7/johns/548 · .json · Public domain