Thompson v. Warder
4 Yeates 336
Opinion
The court declared that they saw no difficulty in granting the motion, though against the consent of the adverse party, in case of an informality. The practice had obtained in other cases, and [337]*337evidently conduced to justice. The parties at length mutually agreed, that the defendant should be heard on a stated day by the same referees, to make his objections to the sum found due.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thompson v. Warder, 4 Yeates 336 (Pa. 1806).
4 Yeates 336 (Thompson v. Warder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
La Vale Plaza, Inc., a New York Corporation v. R. S. Noonan, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
378 F.2d 569 (Third Circuit, 1967)
Tracy v. Herrick
25 N.H. 381 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1852)
Etter v. Edwards
4 Watts 63 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1835)