Van Rensselaer v. Dole
1 Johns. Cas. 239
This text of 1 Johns. Cas. 239 (Van Rensselaer v. Dole) 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
Van Rensselaer v. Dole, 1 Johns. Cas. 239 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).
Opinion
It was incumbent on the defendant to obtain a judge’s certificate to stay the proceedings, which is expressly required by the fourth rule of January, 1799. Not having done this, nor accounted for the neglect, we cannot interfere.
Rule denied.
N. B. The case was afterwards argued and decided on its merits, by consent of parties. ■
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Priest v. Capitain
139 S.W. 204 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
Hotchkiss v. Olmstead
37 Ind. 74 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
1 Johns. Cas. 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-rensselaer-v-dole-nysupct-1800.