Sloan v. Wattles
13 Johns. 158
Opinion
- /The attorney'might ha-ve altered the, test a nd .return of a writ before it had been served; and the sheriff was fully authorized, by. the attorney, to -make the alteration in case it should be-necessary. .vWe think.the-'sheriff, in this'case, had not proceeded so far hut that he might exercise the power,•given* to 'him/by- the attorney, and that the motion, therefore, fought to he-denied.
Motion-denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sloan v. Wattles, 13 Johns. 158 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).
13 Johns. 158 (Sloan v. Wattles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McCracken v. Richardson
46 N.J.L. 50 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1884)
Bray v. Libby
71 Me. 276 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1880)
Osgood v. Norris
21 N.H. 435 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1850)
Cutler v. Colver
3 Cow. 30 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)