Bentley v. Smith

New York Supreme Court

Bentley v. Smith

3 Cai. Cas. 170

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1805

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 170 (Bentley v. Smith) 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

Bentley v. Smith, 3 Cai. Cas. 170 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Stating that the plaintiffs named, and comPan7 complain, is acknowledging that other persons ought to sue. Did the defendants ever acknowledge there were no others ; this mode of declaring ought not to be suffered. Why did you not say Thomas Bentley, Allen Potter, and John P. Becker, trading under the stile and firm of T. B« A. P. J. P. B. and Company ? The demurrer is well taken, and the defendants entitled to judgment. But the plaintiffs may amend on payment of costs.

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

Per curiam.

Stating that the plaintiffs named, and comPan7 complain, is acknowledging that other persons ought to sue. Did the defendants ever acknowledge there were no others ; this mode of declaring ought not to be suffered. Why did you not say Thomas Bentley, Allen Potter, and John P. Becker, trading under the stile and firm of T. B« A. P. J. P. B. and Company ? The demurrer is well taken, and the defendants entitled to judgment. But the plaintiffs may amend on payment of costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bentley-v-smith-nysupct-1805.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack