Mc Evers v. Markler
1 Johns. Cas. 248
Opinion
Though the defendant was entitled to fourteen days notice of tñal, yet the notice that was given was sufficient to put him on inquiry, and he ought to have made his application at the last term. Having suffered a term to intervene since the verdict was taken, he comes too late with the present motion.
Rule refused.
а) Gra. Prac. 2d edit. 679, 680.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mc Evers v. Markler, 1 Johns. Cas. 248 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).
1 Johns. Cas. 248 (Mc Evers v. Markler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ætna Life Insurance v. McCormick
20 Wis. 265 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1866)