Manhattan Co. v. Smith
1 Cai. Cas. 67, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 168
Opinion
acquiesced, because it had been so decided, but confessed he did not believe the legislature intended the construction put upon the act by the court should ever be given to it. The rigor of the practice was, in, his opinion, enough to condemn it, for he thought the neglect in the plaintiff ought to accrue to the advantage of the prisoner.
Supersedeas refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Manhattan Co. v. Smith, 1 Cai. Cas. 67, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 168 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1803).
1 Cai. Cas. 67 (Manhattan Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Watt v. Healy
29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)