Burk v. Barnard
4 Johns. 309
Opinion
It was decided in the case of Bunn v. Thomas & King, that where a term or more intervenes between the teste and return of a writ, it is a nullity, and that where a writ is void, it cannot be amended. The motion must be denied.
Rule refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Burk v. Barnard, 4 Johns. 309 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).
4 Johns. 309 (Burk v. Barnard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sharman v. Huot
52 P. 558 (Montana Supreme Court, 1898)
Dickerson v. Cass County Bank
64 N.W. 395 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Coda v. Thompson
19 S.E. 548 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1894)
Sammis v. Wightman
25 Fla. 547 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)
Holzman v. Martinez
2 N.M. 271 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1882)
Briggs v. Sneghan
45 Ind. 14 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Kelly v. Gilman
29 N.H. 385 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)