Sturtevant v. Fairman

The Superior Court of New York City

Sturtevant v. Fairman

6 Sandf. 674

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedNovember 13, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Sandf. 674 (Sturtevant v. Fairman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sturtevant v. Fairman, 6 Sandf. 674 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

This point was decided by

Sandford, J.,

at chambers, with the concurrence of all the justices. ' On the plaintiffs motion an order was made requiring the defendant' to make his answer more definite in certain particulars, and directing him to pay [675]*675tbe plaintiff ten dollars costs of the motion. The defendant then tendered a definite answer, but did not pay or offer the costs of the motion, for which reason the plaintiff refused to receive the answer, and proceeded as if no such answer had been offered. On a subsequent motion, the practice was settled as above stated.

L. B. Marsh, for the plaintiff. G. L. Isham, for the defendant.

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

This point was decided by

Sandford, J.,

at chambers, with the concurrence of all the justices. ' On the plaintiffs motion an order was made requiring the defendant' to make his answer more definite in certain particulars, and directing him to pay [675]*675tbe plaintiff ten dollars costs of the motion. The defendant then tendered a definite answer, but did not pay or offer the costs of the motion, for which reason the plaintiff refused to receive the answer, and proceeded as if no such answer had been offered. On a subsequent motion, the practice was settled as above stated.

L. B. Marsh, for the plaintiff. G. L. Isham, for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Sandf. 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturtevant-v-fairman-nysuperctnyc-1851.