Olney v. Bacon

3 Cai. Cas. 132, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 474
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1805·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

The stipulation- was- defective, for the object of the plaintiff could not have been obtained by it; nor does it state to have been made with a view of superseding the necessity of an application- to- the court.- But the order to stay proceedings, having in fact expired before the default for not assigning errors was entered, the defendant [133]*133Was regular; though, as there has been some misapprehension, and a delay from accident, it must be set aside on pay-mentor costs and assigning errors in twenty days.

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

Olney v. Bacon, 3 Cai. Cas. 132, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 474 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1805).

3 Cai. Cas. 132 (Olney v. Bacon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hankins v. . Baker
46 N.Y. 666 (New York Court of Appeals, 1871)