Briggs v. Briggs
3 Johns. 449
Opinion
In the case of Jackson, ex dem Russel, v. Stiles, there were peculiar circumstances, though not fully reported, which afforded strong reason to believe that there was really no defence on the merits, and that delay was the only object of the defendant. A good and substantial defence must mean a defence on the merits.
Rule granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Briggs v. Briggs, 3 Johns. 449 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).
3 Johns. 449 (Briggs v. Briggs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brittan v. Peabody
4 Hill & Den. 61 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1842)