Bander v. Covill

New York Supreme Court

Bander v. Covill

4 Cow. 60

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1825

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 Cow. 60 (Bander v. Covill) 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

Bander v. Covill, 4 Cow. 60 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia.

In determining the sufficiency of this and the like notices, it is a general rule that we will inquire whether the attorney or party was misled by the defect. Now though these Circuits are not appointed by law, yet notice is required to be published, and the attorneys, especially where, as here, they live directly in the neighborhood of the Circuit, must look to it. But we will also examine the question whether the party, his attorney, or counsel, have, in fact, been misled ; and it appears clearly, in this case, that they have not. The motion must be denied.

Motion denied.

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

Curia.

In determining the sufficiency of this and the like notices, it is a general rule that we will inquire whether the attorney or party was misled by the defect. Now though these Circuits are not appointed by law, yet notice is required to be published, and the attorneys, especially where, as here, they live directly in the neighborhood of the Circuit, must look to it. But we will also examine the question whether the party, his attorney, or counsel, have, in fact, been misled ; and it appears clearly, in this case, that they have not. The motion must be denied.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cow. 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bander-v-covill-nysupct-1825.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack