Todd v. Thompson
2 U.S. 105, 2 Dall. 105
Opinion
It is certainly a great default, that an earlier application was not made for the exemplification ; and *107 that intructions were not given to some person, to see that it was regularly made out. On that ground alone, therefore, the motion must be granted. But even if the plaintiff had not been guilty of a laches ; if it was a misfortune, and not negligence, that had prevented the seasonable arrival of the record, we should still doubt the propriety of refusing the rule.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Todd v. Thompson, 2 U.S. 105, 2 Dall. 105 (1790).
2 U.S. 105 (Todd v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bearup v. Shinn
D. Arizona, 2024
Brashear v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
E.D. California, 2020
Morgan v. Harnischfeger Corp.
791 A.2d 1273 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Galbraith v. Walker
95 Pa. 481 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)
Rogers v. Burns
27 Pa. 525 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1856)
Obermyer v. Nichols
6 Binn. 159 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1813)
Executors of Pawling v. Administrators of Pawling
4 Yeates 219 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1805)