Case Name: Bliss against Rice
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1812-05
Citations: 9 Johns. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bliss against Rice.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
Bliss against Rice.
NEWYORK
May, 1812
If an error in assigned, as partean! *e^defendanfc est erratum, &c.he" admits the fact.
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
The error assigned in this cause was, that Bliss, the defendant below, was an infant, under the age of 21 years, and appeared in person, and not by guardian. The defendant in error pleaded in nullo est erratum.
Johnson, for the plaintiff in error, contended that an infant mus£ always appear by guardian, and if he does not, it is error. That where to an assignment of error in fact, the defendant pleads in nullo est erratum, the plea admits the fact, if it is well assigned. The defendant in error ought to have put in issue the fact of infancy.
JV. Williams, contra.
8 Johns. Rep. 418. 2 Johns. Rep. 291. 6 Saund. 117.
9 Vin. Error, K. a. pl. 1, 2, 3. T. Raym. 231. Saund. 101. s. 1 Burr. 412.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The rule is settled, that if an error in fact is we][ assigned, and the defendant in error pleads in nullo est erratum, he confesses the fact. It was so laid down by Hale, Ch. J. in Okeover v. Owerbury, (T. Raym. 231.) who put the very case of infancy assigned for error. (9 Viner, 550.) The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment of reversal.