Corlies v. Delaplaine
2 Sandf. 680
Opinion
after advising with Oakley, Ch. J., and Paine, J., denied the motion, because the plaintiff had put in a reply [681]*681before he gave notice of his application. He said it was deemed best to require the party to object promptly, to matter alleged to be redundant or irrelevant; and answering the pleading should be considered as a waiver of such objection.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Corlies v. Delaplaine, 2 Sandf. 680 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1850).
2 Sandf. 680 (Corlies v. Delaplaine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stilwell v. Kelly
5 Jones & S. 417 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1874)
Raphaelsky v. Lynch
12 Abb. Pr. 224 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1871)