Ludlow v. Hackett

18 Johns. 252
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1820·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Heffernan v. Brown, we decided, at the last term, that where a defendant obtains a discharge under the act giving relief in cases of imprisonment, the plaintiff might discontinue his suit without costs, in the same manner as if the defendant had been discharged from all his debts under the insolvent act. If the plaintiff, knowing of the defendant’s discharge, will, nevertheless, go on with the suit, he must, if he afterwards discontinues, pay costs. Let the plaintiff have leave to discontinue his suit on payment of the costs of suit since the defendant obtained his discharge under the late act, and up to the time of the entry of the rule for a discontinuance, exclusive of the costs of the application made at the last term.

Rule accordingly.

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

Ludlow v. Hackett, 18 Johns. 252 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).

18 Johns. 252 (Ludlow v. Hackett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ludington v. Bell
13 Jones & S. 513 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1879)
De Barante v. Deyermand
40 How. Pr. 180 (New York Court of Appeals, 1869)
Hyde v. Van Valkenburgh
1 Daly 416 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1865)