Anderson v. Vandenburgh

New York Supreme Court

Anderson v. Vandenburgh

1 How. Pr. 212

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 15, 1845

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 How. Pr. 212 (Anderson v. Vandenburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Vandenburgh, 1 How. Pr. 212 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Jewett, Justice.

Denied the motion with costs on the ground that Clark & Pattison attended the term in good faith, with an intention to oppose the motion as they were bound to do by the notice served on them, and in consequence of the omission of plaintiff’s attorneys in addressing their original papers to Clark & Pattison, they had good reason to suppose there might be two causes between the same parties, and took a rule for costs regularly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jewett, Justice.

Denied the motion with costs on the ground that Clark & Pattison attended the term in good faith, with an intention to oppose the motion as they were bound to do by the notice served on them, and in consequence of the omission of plaintiff’s attorneys in addressing their original papers to Clark & Pattison, they had good reason to suppose there might be two causes between the same parties, and took a rule for costs regularly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-vandenburgh-nysupct-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack