Bruen v. Adams

New York Supreme Court

Bruen v. Adams

3 Cai. Cas. 97, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 448

DecidedMay 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Cai. Cas. 97 (Bruen v. Adams) 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

Bruen v. Adams, 3 Cai. Cas. 97, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 448 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Thomson, J.

The practice, I adopted was, that if the defendant’s counsel said there was a defence, I did not allow it to be taken.

[98]*98NEW-YORK, May, 1805.

Per curiam.

The affidavit is defective, in not saying there is a defence “ as advised by counsel.” In this case there has been a frivolous demurrer, and that is a very suspicious circumstance. ^ie defendants, therefore, take nothing by their motion.

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

Thomson, J.

The practice, I adopted was, that if the defendant’s counsel said there was a defence, I did not allow it to be taken.

[98]*98NEW-YORK, May, 1805.

Per curiam.

The affidavit is defective, in not saying there is a defence “ as advised by counsel.” In this case there has been a frivolous demurrer, and that is a very suspicious circumstance. ^ie defendants, therefore, take nothing by their motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Cai. Cas. 97, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruen-v-adams-nysupct-1805.