Killbourne v. Fairchild

New York Supreme Court

Killbourne v. Fairchild

12 Wend. 293

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1835

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 Wend. 293 (Killbourne v. Fairchild) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

[294]*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

[294]*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Wend. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killbourne-v-fairchild-nysupct-1835.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack