Gary v. Hull
11 Johns. 441
Opinion
This is a clear case for the plaintiff below. The defendants had waived the benefit of applying the bark on iheir judgment against Hull by issuing their executions tor the whole amount of those judgments.
The agreement, therefore, for making such application, appears to have been rescinded by mutual consent; and there remained no objection to fluids claim for the bark.
The judgment mast be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed»
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gary v. Hull, 11 Johns. 441 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).
11 Johns. 441 (Gary v. Hull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Binck v. Wood
43 Barb. 315 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Kneeland v. Fuller
51 Me. 518 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1863)
Smith v. Weeks
26 Barb. 463 (New York Supreme Court, 1857)
Givhan v. Dailey's Admr'x
4 Ala. 336 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1842)
Holbrook v. Armstrong
10 Me. 31 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1833)
Burlingame v. Burlingame
7 Cow. 108 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)