History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jansen v. Stoutenbergh
9 Johns. 369
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1812
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. The objeu» tion of want of jurisdiction in the justice, is untenable. The action falls within the denomination of actions cognisable in justices courts. There is nothing special in the proceedings, or judgment to be given, which can take away the jurisdiction. The magistrate is competent to afford the sheriff all the relief to which he would be entitled in any other court, relative to staying proceedings against him. And there can be no reason why jurisdie tion should be denied. The motion for a nonsuit was properly overruled. There was no variance between the plaintiffs’ names in this suit, and the one against Smith. No objection having been made to any of the testimony, at the trial, it is now too late to hear any .

Judgment affirmed,.

Case Details

Case Name: Jansen v. Stoutenbergh
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1812
Citation: 9 Johns. 369
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.