New York Supreme Court, 1806

Welsh v. Hill

Welsh v. Hill
New York Supreme Court · Decided November 15, 1806
2 Johns. 100

Counsel

Hoffman and T. A. Emmett, for the defendant., Slosson and Tloplcins, for the plaintiff.

Welsh v. Hill

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The affidavit of Post, the correspondent of the house in England, is not positive. He does not swear that he believes any thing due to the plaintiff.—

These affidavits are insufficient, and the defendant must be discharged on filing common bail. As to receiving counter affidavits in such cases, the practice was settled in the case of Clason v. Lyde, in April term, 1801, where the court decided, that a judge at his chambers might, in his discretion, admit or refuse counter affidavits, according to circumstances. Where the plaintiff swears positively to a debt, it would be improper to receive them.

Rule granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.