Stoddard v. Holmes
This text of 1 Cow. 245 (Stoddard v. Holmes) 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.
Opinion
By the adjournment of the cause to the 26th August, and the non-attendance of the Justice that day, the pause was discontinued. (West v. Critsinger, 4 John. 117.) The consent of the plaintiff and Stoddard, afterwards, gave the Justice jurisdiction as to them. But the defendant, Geege, did not appear,
Judgment reversed.
Vid. Hubbard v. Spencer, (15 John. 244,) where the judgment was Rolden void, as against the defendant, for want of authority in Sherrill, who Appeared as attorney, an.d confessed judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Cow. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoddard-v-holmes-nysupct-1823.