Arnold v. Thomas

New York Supreme Court

Arnold v. Thomas

1 How. Pr. 246

DecidedSeptember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. 246 (Arnold v. Thomas) 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

Arnold v. Thomas, 1 How. Pr. 246 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

R was insisted by defendant, that the affidavit was insufficient, for the reason that the facts stated in it, did not show a conversion; the defendant might have hired the property from plaintiff.

Beardsley, Justice.

Held the affidavit insufficient, for the reason mentioned, and decided that no order was necessary; that plaintiff could hold to bail of course, and defendant must apply to mitigate the amount or discharge on common bail. Order to hold bail vacated, without costs

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

R was insisted by defendant, that the affidavit was insufficient, for the reason that the facts stated in it, did not show a conversion; the defendant might have hired the property from plaintiff.

Beardsley, Justice.

Held the affidavit insufficient, for the reason mentioned, and decided that no order was necessary; that plaintiff could hold to bail of course, and defendant must apply to mitigate the amount or discharge on common bail. Order to hold bail vacated, without costs

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-thomas-nysupct-1845.