Heneshoff v. Miller
2 Johns. 295
This text of 2 Johns. 295 (Heneshoff v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Heneshoff v. Miller, 2 Johns. 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).
Opinion
The amendment prayed for does not create a new cause of action. Tea is the substantive cause of action, and the word hyson-skin is merely descriptive. The plaintiff may take his rule; but if he elects to withdraw his plea and confess the action, he will not be entitled to the costs of this motion. .
Rule granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Sachra v. Town of Manilla
95 N.W. 198 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
2 Johns. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heneshoff-v-miller-nysupct-1807.