Recuse, Recusal

[Baker, John]

        Good work, Fred.  What term does the 1817 statute use instead of recuse/recusation?

John Baker

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Shapiro [SMTP:fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 5:20 PM
> To:   ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject:           Re: Recuse, Recusal
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Baker, John wrote:
>
> >         An earlier case takes the term back to 1817, though not in the
> > reflexive form ("recused himself") common today:
> >
> >         >>A judge cannot be recused because his wife is collaterally related
> > by consanguinity to the wife of a party to the suit.
> >
> > Poydras v. Livingston, 5 Mart. (o.s.) 292 (La. 1817).  The first line is
> > from the headnote, which might have been added later.  The opinion refers to
> > the 24th section of the act of 1817, which presumably would be the real
> > antedating.  I don't have that old statute.  The modern one appears to be
>
> I have looked at the original case and statute in hard copy.  The 1817
> case has "recusation," but not any form of "recuse."  The act of 1817 has
> none of these words in it.
>
> Fred Shapiro
>