Lockwood v. McLean

18 Wend. 344
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1837
StatusPublished

This text of 18 Wend. 344 (Lockwood v. McLean) 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
Lockwood v. McLean, 18 Wend. 344 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1837).

Opinion

By the Court,

Bronson, J.

This case is distinguishable from Talman v. Barnes, (12 Wendell, 227,) where an admission of due service was held sufficient, though it was shown that short notice was given. The admission there was by. the attorney; here it is by the agent, who had no power to dispense with the full notice. The motion is denied with costs.

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

Related

Talman v. Barnes
12 Wend. 227 (New York Supreme Court, 1834)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Wend. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockwood-v-mclean-nysupct-1837.