Bank for Savings v. Hope

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bank for Savings v. Hope

8 Daly 316

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided July 15, 1879·Published

Opinion

Van Brunt, J.

I do not think that the objection raised can be sustained. The words objected to are merely surplusage, could not possibly mislead the party, and only inserted in the order that which would have necessarily followed in case, upon the return day of the order, the judge granting it was absent from the chambers of the court.

The order required the defendant to do nothing more than the Code would have required him to do if the words in question had been omitted. 'There was no variation from the statute in any material particular.

The objections of the defendants was properly overruled, and the order appealej. from must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

J. F. Daly and Beach, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Van Brunt, J.

I do not think that the objection raised can be sustained. The words objected to are merely surplusage, could not possibly mislead the party, and only inserted in the order that which would have necessarily followed in case, upon the return day of the order, the judge granting it was absent from the chambers of the court.

The order required the defendant to do nothing more than the Code would have required him to do if the words in question had been omitted. 'There was no variation from the statute in any material particular.

The objections of the defendants was properly overruled, and the order appealej. from must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

J. F. Daly and Beach, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Bank for Savings v. Hope, 8 Daly 316 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1879).

Pincite

8 Daly 316 (Bank for Savings v. Hope) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.