9 Johns. 386
Decided October 15, 1812
New York Supreme Court · decided 1812-10-15
RIKER, for the plaintiff, moved to amend the ca. sa. on file, in this case, by striking out the return day, the 16th August, and insertiug the 15th August, it having been made returnable, by mistake, out of term. He cited 4 Burr. 1187. 1 Cromp. Prac. 368. 1 Salk. 273. 1 Ld. Raym. 775, 776. 3 Wils. 341. 1 Johns. Cas. 31. 5 Johns. Rep. 163.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1812-10-15
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1898
3 state decisions
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 →
¶1The case of Campbell v. Gumming (2 Burr. 1187.) is in point. Where an exec.ulion is returnable out of term, it is not void, though liable to be set aside, on motion, for irregularity. It may, therefore, be amended, though it would be otherwise as to mesne process. We grant the rule to amend, on payment of costs.
¶2Motion granted.