Killbourne v. Fairchild

12 Wend. 293
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 19, 1835·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[294] By the Court,

Sutheeland, J.

The object of the defendant is obviously nothing but delay, and the commissioner who granted the orders in this case has either ignorantly or wilfully lent himself to the accomplishment of the defendant’s purposes. No possible apology can be offered for the great extension of the time to plead given by the original order; and after the great delay, no order should have been granted to stay proceedings for this motion. 10 Wendell, 571. The motion for these reasons, is denied, with costs.

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

Killbourne v. Fairchild, 12 Wend. 293 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

12 Wend. 293 (Killbourne v. Fairchild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brittan v. Peabody
4 Hill & Den. 61 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1842)