New York Supreme Court, 1812

Bliss v. Rice

New York Supreme Court · Decided May 15, 1812

9 Johns. 159

Counsel

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.

Opinion of the Court

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.

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