Belknap v. Ives

New York Supreme Court

Belknap v. Ives

1 How. Pr. 218

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

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.

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

Pincite

1 How. Pr. 218 (Belknap v. Ives) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.