Oothout v. Rooth

New York Supreme Court

Oothout v. Rooth

12 Johns. 151

DecidedJanuary 15, 1815

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Johns. 151 (Oothout v. Rooth) 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

Oothout v. Rooth, 12 Johns. 151 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

, Lhe proviso is unusual m notices, but is implied in every notice of this kind. If it should happen that no interlocutory judgment should be obtained, and no notice of the fact should be given, the party who gave such notice, would be liable to costs. The words in the notice might be rejected as surplusage. We do not think it a sufficient ground for setting aside the proceedings.

Motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

, Lhe proviso is unusual m notices, but is implied in every notice of this kind. If it should happen that no interlocutory judgment should be obtained, and no notice of the fact should be given, the party who gave such notice, would be liable to costs. The words in the notice might be rejected as surplusage. We do not think it a sufficient ground for setting aside the proceedings.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Johns. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oothout-v-rooth-nysupct-1815.