Nichols v. Nichols
10 Wend. 560
Opinion
The objection to the notice was held by Mr. Justice Sutherland to be well taken; but it appearing that the judgment was entered on 10th May, and two special terms having since elapsed, he refused to. grant the motion, saying that as this was an attempt to deprive the plaintiff of his judgment on the ground of mere irregularity, the defendant would be held to the strictest rules of proceeding; and having been guilty of laches in making his motion, he was not entitled to be heard.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nichols v. Nichols, 10 Wend. 560 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1833).
10 Wend. 560 (Nichols v. Nichols) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Vohlers v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co.
137 N.W. 128 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Losee v. Dolan
74 N.Y.S. 685 (New York County Courts, 1902)
Ætna Life Insurance v. McCormick
20 Wis. 265 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1866)
Wetter v. Schlieper
7 Abb. Pr. 92 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1854)
Wood v. Anthony
9 How. Pr. 78 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Bissell v. Bissell
11 Barb. 96 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Parker v. Williams
4 Paige Ch. 439 (New York Court of Chancery, 1834)
Jackson ex dem. Low v. Reynolds
1 Cai. Cas. 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1803)