Hunt v. Brooks
18 Johns. 5
Opinion
The Court, in October term, when they allowed the defendant his audita querela, decided that it should not operate as a supersedeas to the execution. We did not mean to set aside or stay the execution. This is a re[7]*7newal of the same application, nied. The motion must be eta
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hunt v. Brooks, 18 Johns. 5 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).
18 Johns. 5 (Hunt v. Brooks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alcott v. Avery
1 Barb. Ch. 347 (New York Court of Chancery, 1846)
Union Canal Co. v. Young
1 Whart. 410 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)
Wardell v. Eden
2 Johns. Cas. 258 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)