Taylor v. Hatch

12 Johns. 340
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1815·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The practice of the court of K. B. is, not to allow an affidavit taken before the attorney in the cause to' be read. It is a very fit and proper rule, which we shall, therefore, adopt as the practice here. As the party may, however, have been led into a mistake as to the practice, we give him leave to withdraw his motion, and to renew it again, at, the next term, on a proper affidavit.

Footnotes

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

Taylor v. Hatch, 12 Johns. 340 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

12 Johns. 340 (Taylor v. Hatch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vreeland v. Pennsylvania Tanning Co.
130 A.D. 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Linck v. City of Litchfield
31 N.E. 123 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)
Kuh v. Barnett
6 N.Y.S. 881 (Superior Court of New York, 1889)
Kuh v. Barnett
57 Jones & S. 234 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1889)
Collins v. Stewart
16 Neb. 52 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1884)
Bliss v. Molter
8 Abb. N. Cas. 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Warner v. Warner
11 Kan. 121 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1873)
Adams v. Mills
3 How. Pr. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Vary v. Godfrey
6 Cow. 587 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)