Garland v. Chattle
12 Johns. 430
Opinion
The variance between the declaration and the writ, should have been taken advantage of in the proper time; but after plea pleaded by the defendant, Chattle, it is too late for him to make the objection. The writ was issued within the six years, and the declaration is to be considered as a continuance of the same suit, so that the statute was no bar. The motion: must be denied.
Motion denied*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Garland v. Chattle, 12 Johns. 430 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).
12 Johns. 430 (Garland v. Chattle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reeder v. Moore
55 N.W. 436 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Maples v. Mackey
29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 228 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Cornell v. Matthews
27 N.J.L. 522 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1859)
Day v. New England Car-Spring Co.
7 F. Cas. 252 (U.S. Circuit Court for New York, 1854)
Beekman v. Satterlee
5 Cow. 519 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Buckwalter v. United States
11 Serg. & Rawle 193 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1824)
Society for Propagating the Gospel v. Whitcomb
2 N.H. 227 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1820)