Case ID: njl_1/html/0014-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Churiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[12] BICKHAM v. DENNY.
    After arbitrators have been appointed and met, too late to remove a cause by habeas corpus. A habeas corpus is too late after interlocutory judgment. _
    This case was originally commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Gloucester county, and had there been referred to the decision of arbitrators, in December Term, 1790. The arbitrators had met twice and appointed a third meeting, when the counsel for Denny apprehending an unfavorable award, produced a habeas corpus. This was a motion to show cause why a procedendo should not be awarded.
    
      Stockton, for plaintiff.
    
      Leake, for defendant.
   Pee Churiam.

Let a procedendo issue. A man shall not be permitted in this manner to defeat a measure to which he has consented, and which has been made a rule of court. A habeas corpus is too late after interlocutory judgment.

Eule absolute.

Note. — See the case of Sharp v. Sinnickson, post. See also Wyate v. Markham, Barnes 121; 2 Sellon’s Prac. 268; 1 Tidd’s Prac. 338-9.