Talman v. Barnes
12 Wend. 227
This text of 12 Wend. 227 (Talman v. Barnes) 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.
Bluebook
Talman v. Barnes, 12 Wend. 227 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).
Opinion
[228]*228In this case it was objected that but seven days notice of the motion had been given, as was shown by affidavit; in answer to which the defendant’s counsel read the admission of service of notice, in which the plaintiff’s attorney admitted due service of notice. The Chief Justice held the admission to be sufficient, and overruled the objection.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Gilpin v. Savage
138 A.D. 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910)
Greenblatt v. Mendelsohn
46 Misc. 554 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1905)
Harmon v. Van Ness
56 A.D. 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Aetna Insurance v. Swift
12 Minn. 437 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1867)
Towdy v. Ellis
22 Cal. 650 (California Supreme Court, 1863)
Lockwood v. McLean
18 Wend. 344 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
12 Wend. 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talman-v-barnes-nysupct-1834.