Corlies v. Delaplaine
2 Sandf. 680
This text of 2 Sandf. 680 (Corlies v. Delaplaine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Corlies v. Delaplaine, 2 Sandf. 680 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1850).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
2 Sandf. 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corlies-v-delaplaine-nysuperctnyc-1850.