Underhill v. Van Cortlandt
1 Johns. Ch. 500, 1815 N.Y. LEXIS 164, 1815 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 38
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Underhill v. Van Cortlandt. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Johns. Ch. 339 →
Opinion
The motion to enlarge -publication is not of course, but the circumstances of delay are not sufficiently strong to induce a refusal of it, altogether, in this case. To enlarge the rule for publication, only until the present plaintiffs shall have sufficiently answered the cross-bill, puts it in their power to put an end to the delay, at any time, and to bring on their cause to a hearing.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Underhill v. Van Cortlandt, 1 Johns. Ch. 500, 1815 N.Y. LEXIS 164, 1815 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 38 (N.Y. 1815).
1 Johns. Ch. 500 (Underhill v. Van Cortlandt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.