Belknap v. Ives

New York Supreme Court

Belknap v. Ives

1 How. Pr. 218

DecidedSeptember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 1 How. Pr. 218 (Belknap v. Ives) 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

Belknap v. Ives, 1 How. Pr. 218 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Notice of motion given for the first Tuesday of August, held bad, a new notice should have been given for the September term. The new rules having abolished the August term.

H. Wilkes, defendant’s attorney, for motion.—The court refused to allow this motion to be taken by default, because the notice of motion was for the first Tuesday of August. A new notice should have been given for the September term.

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

Notice of motion given for the first Tuesday of August, held bad, a new notice should have been given for the September term. The new rules having abolished the August term.

H. Wilkes, defendant’s attorney, for motion.—The court refused to allow this motion to be taken by default, because the notice of motion was for the first Tuesday of August. A new notice should have been given for the September term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 How. Pr. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belknap-v-ives-nysupct-1845.