Case ID: cow_3/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of Lemuel Smith against The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Putnam.
    A cause between Fitzpatrick, plaintiff, and Smith, defendani, had been commenced and carried to issue in the Putnam Common Pleas ; and then the defendant removed it by hahcas corpus into this Court, butputting in no bail, & procedendo issued and was filed in the Common Pleas, in February term last, and on the last day of that term the plaintiff’s attorney moved to bring the cause on to trial. This was resisted by the defendant’s counsel, on the ground that the cause had but the day before, as appeared by the procedendo on file, been brought into that Court; and, therefore, no notice of trial could regularly have been given. The Court decided that they would hear the cause, and it was tried accordingly, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendant declining to appear. At their next term, in June last, a motion was made to the Common Pleas to set aside the verdict, 8zc. as irregular, but they denied the motion*
    A motion was now made for a mandamus, requiring the Court of Common Pleas to vacate and set aside this verdict and the subsequent proceedings.
    A cause be^fta6e™°Jorpus from the t° ^thiT covirt> former diction tin™» this be done, hT^the “use ^in the irregular,
    
      W. Nelson, for the motion.
    
      J. Oppie, contra.
   Curia,

The Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, and could not proceed til! after the procedendo filed. Of course, there could have been no regular notice of trial. The proceedings of the Court below were, for this reason, irregular, and the motion must be granted.

Rule for a mandamus.