Holmes v. Lansing

New York Supreme Court

Holmes v. Lansing

1 Cole. Cas. 92

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Holmes v. Lansing. Read the opinion of the Court — 1 Johns. Cas. 248 →

New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1799·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is a diveriity of pradlice between the King’s Bench and Common Pleas; [93]*93.the Court will therefore adopt a rule of its own. As the amendment is for the benefit of the plaintiff, it is reafonable he ihould pay the coils of it: and it is equally reafonable that the defendant ihould have an opportunity to plead de novo.

The plaintiff therefore may amend upon payment of coils and giving an imparlance.

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

Per Curiam.

There is a diveriity of pradlice between the King’s Bench and Common Pleas; [93]*93.the Court will therefore adopt a rule of its own. As the amendment is for the benefit of the plaintiff, it is reafonable he ihould pay the coils of it: and it is equally reafonable that the defendant ihould have an opportunity to plead de novo.

The plaintiff therefore may amend upon payment of coils and giving an imparlance.

Holmes v. Lansing, 1 Cole. Cas. 92 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

1 Cole. Cas. 92 (Holmes v. Lansing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.