McNair v. Bronson

New York Supreme Court

McNair v. Bronson

6 Wend. 534

DecidedApril 7, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Wend. 534 (McNair v. Bronson) 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

McNair v. Bronson, 6 Wend. 534 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

On a motion for leave to reply double, it must be shewn that the matters sought to be replied are true.

Motion to reply double. A motion was made for leave to reply double, founded on an affidavit of the attorney and counsel of the plaintiff, that in his opinion the preservation of the plaintiff’s rights required several and distinct answers to a plea put in by the defendants; and enumerated the answers proposed to be given, but did not state that the matters thus desired to be replied were true, nor was there any other affidavit shewing their truth. The motion was opposed on the ground of such defect, and for that cause denied by the Court.

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

On a motion for leave to reply double, it must be shewn that the matters sought to be replied are true.

Motion to reply double. A motion was made for leave to reply double, founded on an affidavit of the attorney and counsel of the plaintiff, that in his opinion the preservation of the plaintiff’s rights required several and distinct answers to a plea put in by the defendants; and enumerated the answers proposed to be given, but did not state that the matters thus desired to be replied were true, nor was there any other affidavit shewing their truth. The motion was opposed on the ground of such defect, and for that cause denied by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Wend. 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-bronson-nysupct-1831.