In re Martin

S.D. New York

In re Martin

16 F. Cas. 875, 6 Ben. 20

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Martin. Read the opinion of the Court — 16 F. Cas. 881 →

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 15, 1872·Published

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The adjudication of March 16th, 1872, as to Vaughan and Montgomery, was erroneous, as the court was without jurisdiction as to them. I direct an order to be entered vacating such adjudication as to them, but allowing it to stand as to Martin alone. In order to prevent any possible embarrassment, the order had better provide that the register’s order setting aside the adjudication of March 16th be vacated, and that the adjudication of March 18th be vacated.

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

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The adjudication of March 16th, 1872, as to Vaughan and Montgomery, was erroneous, as the court was without jurisdiction as to them. I direct an order to be entered vacating such adjudication as to them, but allowing it to stand as to Martin alone. In order to prevent any possible embarrassment, the order had better provide that the register’s order setting aside the adjudication of March 16th be vacated, and that the adjudication of March 18th be vacated.

In re Martin, 16 F. Cas. 875, 6 Ben. 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1872).

Pincite

16 F. Cas. 875 (In re Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.