Scott v. Adams
12 Wend. 218
Opinion
By the Court,
There is no pretence for saying that here more than a term intervenes between the teste and return of the writ. The word next, manifestly, by a clerical error, was substituted for instant. By the eighth day of July next, was meant the eighth day of July next after the seventh day of July, when the writ bore teste, and so I am disposed to read it. The motion therefore is denied, but without costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Scott v. Adams, 12 Wend. 218 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).
12 Wend. 218 (Scott v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Currier v. Bartlett
122 Mass. 133 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1877)