Holmes v. Van Sickle

New York Supreme Court

Holmes v. Van Sickle

2 How. Pr. 184

DecidedJune 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 184 (Holmes v. Van Sickle) 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. Van Sickle, 2 How. Pr. 184 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Jewett, Justice.

Granted the motion, setting aside the sci.fa., and that plaintiff acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment with $10 costs; on the ground that the defendants paid all that they understood to be due, and within the time agreed upon, as appeared by their affidavits; and it seemed, that they paid all which was in fact due. It also appeared that the defendants were deceived, in giving a bond and warrant of attorney, instead of a cognovit, not knowing that the expenses would be increased by so doing.

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

Jewett, Justice.

Granted the motion, setting aside the sci.fa., and that plaintiff acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment with $10 costs; on the ground that the defendants paid all that they understood to be due, and within the time agreed upon, as appeared by their affidavits; and it seemed, that they paid all which was in fact due. It also appeared that the defendants were deceived, in giving a bond and warrant of attorney, instead of a cognovit, not knowing that the expenses would be increased by so doing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 How. Pr. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-van-sickle-nysupct-1846.