Borst v. Griffin
5 Wend. 84
Opinion
By the Court,
The declaration in this case is in the nature of process, but is not process within the meaning of the statute referred to, requiring process to be made returnable within the two first weeks of term ; the statute speaks of the issuing teste and return of process, which language is applicable only to writs. The default, however, was prematurely entered, and the motion is therefore granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Borst v. Griffin, 5 Wend. 84 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1830).
5 Wend. 84 (Borst v. Griffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Vohlers v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co.
137 N.W. 128 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Evans & Hollinger v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
76 Mo. App. 468 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Bowes v. New York Christian Home, &c.
64 How. Pr. 509 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1883)
Ansonia Brass Co. v. Conner
62 How. Pr. 272 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1881)
James v. Faulke
45 Mo. 312 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1870)
Sigler v. Smith
4 E.D. Smith 280 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1855)
Knapp v. Pults
3 How. Pr. 53 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
In re Anonymous
2 Hill & Den. 375 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)