Briggs v. Briggs

3 Johns. 258
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The affidavit is not sufficient. It does not state that the attorney derived his information from the defendant or from his counsel, nor from whom it was obtained. The rule must be denied.

Rule refused-.

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

Briggs v. Briggs, 3 Johns. 258 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

3 Johns. 258 (Briggs v. Briggs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hauswirth v. Sullivan
6 Mont. 203 (Montana Supreme Court, 1886)
Sneaghan v. Briggs
1 Wilson 75 (Indiana Super. Ct., 1871)
Clow v. Woods
5 Serg. & Rawle 275 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1819)