Smith v. White

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Smith v. White

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 1

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 1 (Smith v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. White, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 1 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to his costs, at the time of the notice of retainer served, notwithstanding the previous discontinuance of the suit, by entry of the rule, as the defendant’s attorney was retained, and gave notice of retainer without actual notice of discontinuance of suit; and therefore the plea in abatement was held good.

The Court of Errors held that the defendants not having appeared in the first suit, were not entitled to costs, and that the rule for discontinuance which was replied, was a good answer to the plea of another suit pending.

But that it would have been otherwise had the defendants appeared in the first suit before the rule for discontinuance was entered.

Judgment reversed, 15 to 4.

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

The Supreme Court held that the defendant was entitled to his costs, at the time of the notice of retainer served, notwithstanding the previous discontinuance of the suit, by entry of the rule, as the defendant’s attorney was retained, and gave notice of retainer without actual notice of discontinuance of suit; and therefore the plea in abatement was held good.

The Court of Errors held that the defendants not having appeared in the first suit, were not entitled to costs, and that the rule for discontinuance which was replied, was a good answer to the plea of another suit pending.

But that it would have been otherwise had the defendants appeared in the first suit before the rule for discontinuance was entered.

Judgment reversed, 15 to 4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-white-nycterr-1799.