Sawyer v. Schoonmaker

8 How. Pr. 198
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 How. Pr. 198 (Sawyer v. Schoonmaker) 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
Sawyer v. Schoonmaker, 8 How. Pr. 198 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Opinion

Welles, Justice.

It is objected, on the part of the plaintiff, that the folios of the affidavits upon which the motion is founded, are not distinctly numbered and marked, as required by the rule. The objection is true, in point of fact, and although quite technical, is not more so, than the grounds of the motion. The complaint was served with the summons. The former contained, a proper reference to the statute under which the penalties are [199]*199claimed to have been incurred. There is, therefore, no color of merits in the motion; and when a party comes into court demanding strict practice, on purely technical grounds, he must see to it that his own practice is not obnoxious to similar objections to those which he raises to that of his adversary. Here, too, has been laches in making the motion, which would be readily excused upon the facts slated, in a case where there were merits. Besides, the defendant should have returned the papers with the objections stated, so far as the folios were concerned. The motion is denied, with seven dollars costs.

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

Related

Jackson v. Barrett
86 P. 270 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1906)
Brown v. Pond
5 F. 31 (S.D. New York, 1880)
Bissell v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
67 Barb. 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Cox v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
61 Barb. 615 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 How. Pr. 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawyer-v-schoonmaker-nysupct-1853.