Lyman v. Arms
Lyman v. Arms
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
It is now too late to call in question the procee¿jng p,y error instead of certiorari. Until the distinction was taken by Chief Justice Parsons in the case of Savage v. Gulliver, 4 Mass. R. 171, error was most commonly brought in cases more proper for certiorari; but the Court appear not to have seen any objection to error in a case like this ; possibly because the judgment is rendered in a common law court. It is true that in this case the judgment can only be affirmed or reversed, but that may be in part or in whole. A venire facias de novo cannot be awarded, because there was no writ and no jury.
But we do not see that the judgment is erroneous. It does not appear that the referees took any thing into consideration beyond the demands of the parties against each other, except in reduction of the administrator’s demand, and of that the plaintiff cannot complain. It is true they have awarded that certain property and credits shall belong tc him, which it must be presumed were the property of the firm ;
This judgment must be affirmed, there being no error in the record. If injury has been done, the plaintiff in error must seek a different mode of redress.
The principle is general, that a man cannot assign for error, that which is to his advantage, John v. Clayton 1 Blackford, 55.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Augustus Lyman, in Error, versus Pliny Arms
- Status
- Published