St. John v. Hart
16 How. Pr. 192
Opinion
The plaintiff should have made this motion as soon as he was aware of the defence of infancy. Since the answer was put in he has continued to proceed with the cause, and has materially increased the costs. There is no excuse for this, and he can only be relieved on payment of them.
Motion for leave to discontinue is granted on payment of the costs after the answer was put in.
No costs allowed on this motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
St. John v. Hart, 16 How. Pr. 192 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).
16 How. Pr. 192 (St. John v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Schmuckler v. Green
249 A.D. 342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Ludington v. Bell
13 Jones & S. 513 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1879)