Henry v. Bow

20 How. Pr. 215
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 How. Pr. 215 (Henry v. Bow) 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
Henry v. Bow, 20 How. Pr. 215 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Opinion

Emott, Justice.

The papers, affidavits, &c., upon which this motion is made, are defaced with interlineations and erasures to such an extent that the court ought not to receive or act upon them; and this would be a sufficient reason for denying the motion.

[216]*216As far as I understand the counsel, and can make out from the papers, the ground of the motion is simply that judgment was entered, with notice of taxation of costs which were subsequently retaxed, and the entry of judgment corrected accordingly. No complaint is made of the final adjustment, or amount of the costs.

I think this is no reason for vacating the judgment. The present motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

De Mott v. Kendrick
17 N.Y.S. 630 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Lampton v. Nichols
1 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 166 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 How. Pr. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-bow-nysupct-1860.