Miller v. Miller

New York Supreme Court

Miller v. Miller

8 Johns. 77

DecidedMay 15, 1811

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Johns. 77 (Miller v. Miller) 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

Miller v. Miller, 8 Johns. 77 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case brings up only one of the points decided in the last case, which is, whether after the charge of the plaintiff in error, that his watch had been stolen, the addition of the words, “ and he had reason to believe that the defendant in error took it,” is not a positive averment of the fact. The principle already laid down in the preceding case, is decisive in the present; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This case brings up only one of the points decided in the last case, which is, whether after the charge of the plaintiff in error, that his watch had been stolen, the addition of the words, “ and he had reason to believe that the defendant in error took it,” is not a positive averment of the fact. The principle already laid down in the preceding case, is decisive in the present; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Johns. 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-nysupct-1811.