Case Name: Brush against Taggart
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1810-11
Citations: 7 Johns. 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: Brush against Taggart.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 19–20

Head Matter:
Brush against Taggart.
NEW-YORK,
Nov. 1810.
The contenta oí* a certiorari, or other writ, can-p°vohPhutedthe original, or a sworn copy of pr<i“'
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court,
ihe suit below was an action or debt upon a judgrnent between the same parties, rendered before another insfire justice.
The point relied upon by the plaintiff In error was, that he pleaded and gave in evidence, that a certiorari had been issued, allowed and. served in the former cause; and to prove it. he called two witnesses, one of whom, stated that the defendant had obtained a certiorari on the judgment before Justice Gorlay, and that he had seen it; the other witness stated, that he had served it upon the justice; and upon being asked whether it was in a suit between the same parties, the question was objected to .and overruled, on the ground that the contents of the certiorari could only be proved by the production of the writ, or of the justice on whom it was served.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The decision below was correct. The ' contents of the writ of certiorari could not be proved by parol, so long as the writ itself, or a sworn copy of it, might have been produced. The case of Edmonstone v. Plaisted (4 Esp. Rep. 160.) shows the strict manner in which the contents of á process, or the existence of it, is to be proved,
Judgment affirmed.