Hardenbergh v. Thompson

New York Supreme Court

Hardenbergh v. Thompson

1 Johns. 61

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The rule to join in error ought to have been personally served on the defendant. It was so decided, in October term 18.01, in error, on certiorari, .where a motion for judgment of reversal on default, for not joining in error, though not opposed, was denied, it appear- . ing, that no attorney had been employed by the defendant in error, and that the notice had been put up in the clerk’s office.

Rule granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The rule to join in error ought to have been personally served on the defendant. It was so decided, in October term 18.01, in error, on certiorari, .where a motion for judgment of reversal on default, for not joining in error, though not opposed, was denied, it appear- . ing, that no attorney had been employed by the defendant in error, and that the notice had been put up in the clerk’s office.

Rule granted.

Hardenbergh v. Thompson, 1 Johns. 61 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

Pincite

1 Johns. 61 (Hardenbergh v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related