Mc Evers v. Markler

1 Johns. Cas. 248
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1800·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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.

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)