Sleght v. Hartshorne
1 Johns. 149
Opinion
As the defendants at the trial, made no objection to the want of preliminary proofs, but proceeded in their defence on the merits of the causé, it must be presumed that their existence and competency were admitted. Being matter merely formal, and not controverted by the defendants, it 'was proper to state their admission in the special verdict.
Rule refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sleght v. Hartshorne, 1 Johns. 149 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).
1 Johns. 149 (Sleght v. Hartshorne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Crich v. Williamsburg City Fire Insurance
48 N.W. 198 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)
Emerson v. Bleakley
2 Abb. Ct. App. 22 (New York Court of Appeals, 1867)