Lester v. Blodgett

2 How. Pr. 110
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1846
StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 110 (Lester v. Blodgett) 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
Lester v. Blodgett, 2 How. Pr. 110 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Opinion

Beardsley, Justice.

The facts and circumstances, to induce a belief that the defendant acted fraudulently in disposing of the bond and mortgage, should have been stated fully and particularly, as also should have been the *grounds for believing that the defendant intended to depart from the state. These grounds, as far as [113]*113any are disclosed in the affidavit, are slight and equivocal, nor are they stated with directness and particularity. They are also met and explained by the affidavit of the defendant, in which he denies any intention to leave the state. The affidavits were not sufficient to justify an order to hold to bail, and additional affidavits could not now be received for that purpose. The motion must be granted. Motion granted, with costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 How. Pr. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lester-v-blodgett-nysupct-1846.