Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of New York (Volume 2); From January Term 1799 to January Term 1803, Both Inclusive Together with Cases Determined in the Court for the Correction of Errors During That Period (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1848. Excerpt: ... Fish v. Weatherwax. tj 56. If no return be made, the court will grant an attachment againt the persons to whom the mandamus was directed; with this difference, however that where a mandamus is directed to a corporation to do a corporate act and no return is made, the attachment is granted only against those particular persons who refuse to pay obedience to the mandamus; but where it is directed to several persons in their natural capacity, the attachment for disobedience must issue against all, though when they are before the court the punishment will be proportioned to their offence. (Rex v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Salop, Hil. 8 Geo. II. Buller's Nisi Prins, 201. 1 Gude Cr. Prac. 189. Mayor of Coventry's case, 2 Salk. 429.) If a mandamus be directed to a "town council," and they adjourn the corporate assembly in order to prevent the return being made, the members will be punishable for contempt. (Regina v. Sir Gilbert Heathcote. 10 Mod. 56.) If an attachment issues for not returning a mandamus, and the sheriff, who is to serve the process, takes bail thereupon, this is a misdemeanor for which an attachment will be granted against him; for these are not like attachments in chancery, for want of an answer, which are only as attachments of process, but are writs on contempt, in nature of executions, and so not bailable by the sheriff (The King v. Baskerville, Sheriff of Shropshire, Mich. 9 Geo. II." tj 57. The writ is to be returned by him to whom it is directed; and if any other return it in his name, without his privity and consent, an action on the case lies against him: also, it is an offence for which the court will grant an attachmeut.t (Skin. 368, pi. 15. Carth. 500. Comb. 422. 2 Show. 504, pi. 465. Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus, G. See also 2 K. St...

R832

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles8320
Mobicred@R78pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1848. Excerpt: ... Fish v. Weatherwax. tj 56. If no return be made, the court will grant an attachment againt the persons to whom the mandamus was directed; with this difference, however that where a mandamus is directed to a corporation to do a corporate act and no return is made, the attachment is granted only against those particular persons who refuse to pay obedience to the mandamus; but where it is directed to several persons in their natural capacity, the attachment for disobedience must issue against all, though when they are before the court the punishment will be proportioned to their offence. (Rex v. Churchwardens and Overseers of Salop, Hil. 8 Geo. II. Buller's Nisi Prins, 201. 1 Gude Cr. Prac. 189. Mayor of Coventry's case, 2 Salk. 429.) If a mandamus be directed to a "town council," and they adjourn the corporate assembly in order to prevent the return being made, the members will be punishable for contempt. (Regina v. Sir Gilbert Heathcote. 10 Mod. 56.) If an attachment issues for not returning a mandamus, and the sheriff, who is to serve the process, takes bail thereupon, this is a misdemeanor for which an attachment will be granted against him; for these are not like attachments in chancery, for want of an answer, which are only as attachments of process, but are writs on contempt, in nature of executions, and so not bailable by the sheriff (The King v. Baskerville, Sheriff of Shropshire, Mich. 9 Geo. II." tj 57. The writ is to be returned by him to whom it is directed; and if any other return it in his name, without his privity and consent, an action on the case lies against him: also, it is an offence for which the court will grant an attachmeut.t (Skin. 368, pi. 15. Carth. 500. Comb. 422. 2 Show. 504, pi. 465. Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus, G. See also 2 K. St...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

February 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

February 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 17mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

318

ISBN-13

978-1-154-25812-7

Barcode

9781154258127

Categories

LSN

1-154-25812-2



Trending On Loot