Rowell v. Crofoot

New York Supreme Court

Rowell v. Crofoot

3 How. Pr. 15

DecidedSeptember 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 3 How. Pr. 15 (Rowell v. Crofoot) 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

Rowell v. Crofoot, 3 How. Pr. 15 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Bronson, Chief Justice.—Held,

that to authorise the motion to be made in behalf of David Crofoot and Isaac Crofoot, Jr. only, the affidavit should have shown that a default had been obtained against Isaac Crofoot; and that if the motion was intended to be made for all the Defendants, the word “ impleaded ” should have been omitted in the title of the affidavit and notice of motion.

Motion denied with costs.

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

Bronson, Chief Justice.—Held,

that to authorise the motion to be made in behalf of David Crofoot and Isaac Crofoot, Jr. only, the affidavit should have shown that a default had been obtained against Isaac Crofoot; and that if the motion was intended to be made for all the Defendants, the word “ impleaded ” should have been omitted in the title of the affidavit and notice of motion.

Motion denied with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 How. Pr. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowell-v-crofoot-nysupct-1846.