Faulkner v. M'Clure

18 Johns. 134
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1820·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This Court has no settled rule of practice", in a case like the present; but we see no objection to granting a rule that the attorneys who have been named, appear and defend for the defendants, stated in the affidavit to be of unsound mind and of full age.

Rule granted.

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

Faulkner v. M'Clure, 18 Johns. 134 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).

18 Johns. 134 (Faulkner v. M'Clure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Silverstein v. Schneider
164 A. 480 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1933)
Moore v. Flagg
137 A.D. 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Menz v. Beebe
70 N.W. 468 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
Williams v. Empire Woolen Co.
7 A.D. 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Hanley v. Brennan
19 Abb. N. Cas. 186 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1887)
Van Horn v. Hann
39 N.J.L. 207 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1877)
Coombs v. Janvier
31 N.J.L. 240 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1865)
Ex parte Northington
37 Ala. 496 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)
Crippen v. Culver
13 Barb. 424 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Sternbergh v. Schoolcraft
2 Barb. 153 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Lang v. Whidden
2 N.H. 435 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1822)