Irwin v. Deyo

New York Supreme Court

Irwin v. Deyo

7 Cow. 153

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Irwin v. Deyo. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Wend. 285 →

New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1827·Published

Opinion

Curia.

Giles v. Caines, 3 Caines, 107, gives countenance to the practice on the part of the defendant. But the rule supposed to be implied by that case, was exploded by Smith v. Wells, (6 John 286.) The party must be governed by the copies delivered. If the other party desire the pleading should be filed, we will compel this to be done at any time nunc pro tunc. The motion must be granted.

Motion granted.

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

Curia.

Giles v. Caines, 3 Caines, 107, gives countenance to the practice on the part of the defendant. But the rule supposed to be implied by that case, was exploded by Smith v. Wells, (6 John 286.) The party must be governed by the copies delivered. If the other party desire the pleading should be filed, we will compel this to be done at any time nunc pro tunc. The motion must be granted.

Motion granted.

Irwin v. Deyo, 7 Cow. 153 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).

Pincite

7 Cow. 153 (Irwin v. Deyo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related