Charles v. Stansbury
3 Johns. 261
Opinion
Rule granted.
ON the application of A. B. to be admitted to an examination as an attorney of this court, the certificate of clerkship by the attorney was, that the clerk “ had regularly pursued the study of the law, under his direction and superintendance,” &c. The court said that the certificate was insufficient; that the attorney ought to certify that the clerk has served his clerkship, regularly, in the office of such attorney.
Mr. Justice Thompson was absent during the whole of this term, from indisposition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Charles v. Stansbury, 3 Johns. 261 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).
3 Johns. 261 (Charles v. Stansbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Vohlers v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co.
137 N.W. 128 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Losee v. Dolan
74 N.Y.S. 685 (New York County Courts, 1902)
Meares v. Finlayson
32 S.E. 986 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1899)
Arnold v. Nye
23 Mich. 286 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1871)
Bissell v. Bissell
11 Barb. 96 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
State Bank v. Seawell
18 Ala. 616 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1851)
Estis v. Rawlins
5 Miss. 258 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1840)
Levy v. Boas
18 S.C.L. 217 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1831)