Arnold v. Thomas

New York Supreme Court

Arnold v. Thomas

1 How. Pr. 246

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Arnold v. Thomas. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 How. Pr. 91 →

New York Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1845·Published

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

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

Pincite

1 How. Pr. 246 (Arnold v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.