Cornwell v. Clements

New York Supreme Court

Cornwell v. Clements

34 N.Y.S. 998, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 111

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 26, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 998 (Cornwell v. Clements) 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

Cornwell v. Clements, 34 N.Y.S. 998, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 111 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an application on the part of the defendant for permission to appeal to the court of appeals from the judgment of the general term of this court, reversing the judgment of the spe[999]*999cial term, which sustained a demurrer to the complaint in this action. The motion is based upon an affidavit of the attorney for the defendant, which states that the defendant desires to appeal to the court of appeals from the judgment of the general term. The affidavit states no reason why such permission should be granted, and we have been unable to discover any. According to the complaint, the defendant has been guilty of a gross fraud, and he should not be permitted to delay the day of trial by technical objections to the complaint. If he has any defense, he had better address himself to its production; and if he has none there should be no delay of the day of judgment. The motion should be denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an application on the part of the defendant for permission to appeal to the court of appeals from the judgment of the general term of this court, reversing the judgment of the spe[999]*999cial term, which sustained a demurrer to the complaint in this action. The motion is based upon an affidavit of the attorney for the defendant, which states that the defendant desires to appeal to the court of appeals from the judgment of the general term. The affidavit states no reason why such permission should be granted, and we have been unable to discover any. According to the complaint, the defendant has been guilty of a gross fraud, and he should not be permitted to delay the day of trial by technical objections to the complaint. If he has any defense, he had better address himself to its production; and if he has none there should be no delay of the day of judgment. The motion should be denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 998, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornwell-v-clements-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack