Hollingsworth v. Adams
2 U.S. 396, 1 L. Ed. 431, 2 Dall. 396, 1798 U.S. LEXIS 159
Opinion
HOLLINGSWORTH
versus
ADAMS.
Supreme Court of United States.
Thomas and Hallowell, on behalf of the plaintiff, wished for time to enquire into the practice; but not being able on the next day to assign any satisfactory reason in maintenance of the action.
THE COURT directed the writ to be quashed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hollingsworth v. Adams, 2 U.S. 396, 1 L. Ed. 431, 2 Dall. 396, 1798 U.S. LEXIS 159 (1798).
2 U.S. 396 (Hollingsworth v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lovejoy v. Hartford Fire Ins.
11 F. 63 (N.D. Illinois, 1882)
Folwell v. Beaver
13 Serg. & Rawle 311 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1825)
Bishop v. Dexter
2 Conn. 419 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1818)