Harris v. Buehler

Superior Court of Delaware

Harris v. Buehler

40 A. 733, 17 Del. 346, 1 Penne. 346, 1898 Del. LEXIS 30

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedJune 16, 1898

DocketNo. 16

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A. 733 (Harris v. Buehler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Buehler, 40 A. 733, 17 Del. 346, 1 Penne. 346, 1898 Del. LEXIS 30 (Del. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Tore, C. J:—

As to the first and second exceptions, the Court will take judicial notice that Charles Green was a constable of this County.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error contends that the Justice ought to have set forth on his record that he himself was satisfied that there was danger of the plaintiff’s losing the benefit of his process by delay before issuing the forthwith summons. We think the exceptions are not tenable. Judgment below is affirmed.

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

Tore, C. J:—

As to the first and second exceptions, the Court will take judicial notice that Charles Green was a constable of this County.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error contends that the Justice ought to have set forth on his record that he himself was satisfied that there was danger of the plaintiff’s losing the benefit of his process by delay before issuing the forthwith summons. We think the exceptions are not tenable. Judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 733, 17 Del. 346, 1 Penne. 346, 1898 Del. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-buehler-delsuperct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack