Bull v. Hopkins
7 Johns. 22
Opinion
The justice, in his supplementary return, refers to, and adopts, as correct and true, the facts stated in the affidavit of Hopkins; and from those-facts it appears, that the plaintiff’s demand below accrued subsequent to the former trial; and arose from the payment of money for the defendant’s use, which could not have been legally set off at the former trial, and so the former trial was no bar.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bull v. Hopkins, 7 Johns. 22 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
7 Johns. 22 (Bull v. Hopkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Justice
District of Columbia, 2018
Inhabitants of Embden v. Lisherness
36 A. 1101 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1897)
Dillinger v. Kelley
84 Mo. 563 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Wisconsin v. Torinus
9 N.W. 725 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1881)
Baxter v. Aubrey
1 N.W. 897 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Oleson v. Merrihew
45 Wis. 397 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1878)
Bath v. Lindenmyer
1 Wyo. 240 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1875)
Marcellus v. Countryman
65 Barb. 201 (New York Supreme Court, 1873)
McFarlane v. Cushman
21 Wis. 401 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1867)
Baker v. Rand
13 Barb. 152 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Hatch v. Benton
6 Barb. 28 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Kane v. Fisher
2 Watts 246 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1834)