Case ID: cow_1/html/0112-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morrell against Near.
    
      Certiorari from a Justice's Court.
    
    m^^vithout consent of parto6S’a convenlent piace^difthat at which returnable8 it having been returned, and both parties appearing there. And if the parties accompany the justice, without equivalent * to SreC°adjourn° toent.
    this case, one objection to the proceedings, in the Court below, was, that the trial was had at a place different from that at which the summons was returnable ; though the process was returned, and the parties appeared at the time and place of return, and accompanied the Justice to the-P^ace °f : and Case v. Van Ness,
      
       and Stewart v.. Meigs,
      
       were relied upon, in support of the objection,
    
      Flandrau &/■ Morrison, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Sherwood Bronson, for the defendant.
    
      
      
         1 John. Cas. 243.
    
    
      
      
        h) 12 John. Rep. 417.
    
   Per Curiam.

The process having been returned, at the place where it was returnable, and both parties appearing there, the *fus^ce had a right to adjourn the trial of the cause to any other convenient place, without the consent of the parties. But, in this case, the parlies did assent, by not objecting, and by accompanying the Justice. The authorities relied upon are very different from this case. In Case v. Van Ness, it did not appear where the Court was held, and the judgment was by default. The Court would not intend that the trial was at the place where the process was returnable. If not, then the defendant may have appeared in pursuance of the process. In Stewart v. Meigs, the process was returned and the trial had, at a place different from that mentioned in the process, though the defendant did not appear.

Judgment affirmed.