Holmes v. Lansing

New York Supreme Court

Holmes v. Lansing

1 Cole. Cas. 92

DecidedJanuary 15, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cole. Cas. 92 (Holmes v. Lansing) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cole. Cas. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-lansing-nysupct-1799.