Cornell v. Allen
This text of 1 Cole. Cas. 70 (Cornell v. Allen) 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.
Opinion
MOTION to have Judgment of Non-fuit for not bringing on the Caufe to Trial, fet afide.
[71]*71The Suit was again ft the Defendants. jointly, on a promiffory Note. Talmadge only was brought in, and he employed an Attorney. The Note was afterwards, by Agreement between Allen and a third Perfon, taken up, and the Coils paid by that Perfon to the Plaintiff's Attorney. The Attorney employed by Talmadge, notwith-ftanding he was informed by the Plaintiff's Attorney, that the Note was fo taken up, and the Coils 'paid, filed a Plea, the general Iffue, and ferved a Copy on the Plaintiff's Attorney; and in a fubfequent Term, after there had been a Circuit in the County, obtained the above Rule for Judgment of Nonfuit.
Judgment fet afide; and the Attorney employed by Talmadge ordered to pay to the Plaintiff's Attorney the Coils of this Motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cole. Cas. 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-v-allen-nysupct-1799.