Heneshoff v. Miller
2 Johns. 295
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
Heneshoff v. Miller, 2 Johns. 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).
2 Johns. 295 (Heneshoff v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sachra v. Town of Manilla
95 N.W. 198 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)