History
  • No items yet
midpage
Van Der Mark v. Jackson
1 Cai. Cas. 251
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1803
Check Treatment
*Per Curiam.

As the writ was rever returned, this court was never in possession of the cause. Whatever has been done here, must, therefore, be set aside. See Leith v. Mac Ferlan, 4 Burr. 1772.

Motion granted.(b)

Ante, 250. Abeel v. Wolcott. The court refused to quash a writ of error because the transcript was not returned and filed. Aeonrt v. Swift, 1 Ld. Raym. 329.' It would seem that before the return of a writ of error application to quash it must be made to the court from whence it issues, after the return to the court in which returnable. Lloyd v. Slutt, Doug. 350. In which case the writ must be entered on the roll, before the defendant can move to quash. Kent v. 6 Mod. 138. See also Lewis Griswold, 1 Wend. 292. Morris v. De Witt, 5 Id. 71. Ferguson v. Jones, 12 Id. 241.

Case Details

Case Name: Van Der Mark v. Jackson
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 15, 1803
Citation: 1 Cai. Cas. 251
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.