History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mixer v. Dalrymple
2 Mass. 116
Mass.
1806
Check Treatment
But the Court

refused to sustain the motion, and observed that it was not within the true intent of the statute, providing for the filing jtnd allowing of these exceptions, that the Court should spend time in hearing and determining motions grounded on these exceptions, and in the mean time to delay judgment, when the party filing the exceptions had a right, by a writ of review, to have a new trial, if *113the motion should be refused; and that the design of the legisla turc was to provide a remedy in a case where none existed, and not in a case where the party aggrieved had a remedy in the ordinary course of law. (a)

Ashman for the defendant.

Cogswell vs. Brown, 1 Mass. Rep. 237.— Byrnes vs. Piper Al. 5 Mass. Rep. 363 — Dunham & Al. vs. Baxter, 4 Mass. Rep. 79.

Case Details

Case Name: Mixer v. Dalrymple
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Sep 15, 1806
Citation: 2 Mass. 116
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
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.