Brooks v. Hunt

New York Supreme Court

Brooks v. Hunt

3 Cai. Cas. 94, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 444

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 94 (Brooks v. Hunt) 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

Brooks v. Hunt, 3 Cai. Cas. 94, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 444 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The defendant had a right to move, and therefore, t^10US^ we ^eny bis motion, it must be on payment of costs ; but, from the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is excuse» from stipulating.

[95]*95NEW-YORK, May, 1805.

Thompson, J.

I do not think this according to practice. The cause was long enough at issue to allow of a notice, and he ought therefore to stipulate.

*⅞* It was said by the bench, that in all cases the period within which costs are to be paid, is twenty days.

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