Cary v. Livermore

New York Supreme Court

Cary v. Livermore

2 How. Pr. 170

DecidedJune 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 170 (Cary v. Livermore) 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

Cary v. Livermore, 2 How. Pr. 170 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that the affidavit was defective, in not stating that defendant had fully and fairly stated the case to his counsel, and in not stating that his witnesses are necessary, and in not stating that he had fully and fairly disclosed to his said counsel the facts which he expected to prove by each and every of his said witnesses, &c.

Jewett, Justice.

Thought the counsel had mentioned defects enough; he would deny the motion with costs, without prejudice, and give the defendant’s attorney a chance to try again.

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

Plaintiff’s counsel insisted that the affidavit was defective, in not stating that defendant had fully and fairly stated the case to his counsel, and in not stating that his witnesses are necessary, and in not stating that he had fully and fairly disclosed to his said counsel the facts which he expected to prove by each and every of his said witnesses, &c.

Jewett, Justice.

Thought the counsel had mentioned defects enough; he would deny the motion with costs, without prejudice, and give the defendant’s attorney a chance to try again.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 How. Pr. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cary-v-livermore-nysupct-1846.