King v. Stafford

6 How. Pr. 127
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 How. Pr. 127 (King v. Stafford) 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
King v. Stafford, 6 How. Pr. 127 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1850).

Opinion

By the Court, Hand, Justice.

We think this is clearly a judgment upon an issue of law, and not an order. It is true, the defendant had leave to amend, and if he did not, the plaintiff must have the amount assessed by the clerk upon notice. But the leave to amend did not make the judgment itself conditional, and not final. Nor is it interlocutory. It is the final action of the court in a cause, and every thing remianing to be done is merely ministerial. It is like certain decrees in chancery, which used to he deemed final, though directions were given, and a reference ordered to carry them out.

The motion must he granted. But as plaintiff asks a favor, and the question is somewhat new, neither party will have costs. Motion granted.

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

Related

Witherhead v. Allen
28 Barb. 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 How. Pr. 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-stafford-nysupct-1850.