Sebley v. Nichols
32 How. Pr. 182
This text of 32 How. Pr. 182 (Sebley v. Nichols) 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
Sebley v. Nichols, 32 How. Pr. 182 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1866).
Opinions
I think that whatever conduces ■ to the better prosecution of the controversy is necessary. "What prudence dictates is necessary ; without it the interests of the party would be unsafe.
Order of special term affirmed.
Barnard, J., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Park v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
57 A.D. 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Park v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
33 Misc. 320 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)
Ridabock v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.
8 A.D. 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Zelmanovitz v. Manhattan Railroad
67 N.Y. St. Rep. 405 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Whitney v. Roe
27 N.Y.S. 511 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Seasongood v. New York El. R.
18 N.Y.S. 775 (Superior Court of New York, 1892)
Seasongood v. New York Elevated Railroad
46 N.Y. St. Rep. 832 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1892)
Zelmanovitz v. Manhattan Railway Co.
33 N.Y.S. 583 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1891)
Adams v. New York, Lake Erie & W. R. R. Co.
20 Abb. N. Cas. 180 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
32 How. Pr. 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebley-v-nichols-nysupct-1866.