Bentley v. Smith

3 Cai. Cas. 170
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1805·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

3 Cai. Cas. 170 (Bentley v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barber v. Smith
1 N.W. 992 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)