Brotherson v. Consalus

New York Supreme Court

Brotherson v. Consalus

28 How. Pr. 117, 1864 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 295

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brotherson v. Consalus. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 How. Pr. 213 →

New York Supreme Court·Decided December 5, 1864·Published

Opinion

The Court

denied the motion, and held that the appellant had the right to bring on the appeals at this term. The appellant then moved the argument in the second cause. The respondent stated he wished time to prepare [120]*120for the argument, and at his request both causes were set down for the first Thursday of this term.

On that day, John K. Porter, counsel for the appellant appeared, but the respondent did not appear, and his default was taken in the second cause, reversing the order of the special term, with costs.

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

The Court

denied the motion, and held that the appellant had the right to bring on the appeals at this term. The appellant then moved the argument in the second cause. The respondent stated he wished time to prepare [120]*120for the argument, and at his request both causes were set down for the first Thursday of this term.

On that day, John K. Porter, counsel for the appellant appeared, but the respondent did not appear, and his default was taken in the second cause, reversing the order of the special term, with costs.

Brotherson v. Consalus, 28 How. Pr. 117, 1864 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).

Pincite

28 How. Pr. 117 (Brotherson v. Consalus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.