Van Rensselaer v. Saunders

New York Supreme Court

Van Rensselaer v. Saunders

2 How. Pr. 249

DecidedSeptember 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 249 (Van Rensselaer v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 2 How. Pr. 249 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Bbonson, Chief Justice.

Without showing that the plaintiffs made profert of the indentures, there is no foundation for the motion; for oyer can only be demanded when a deed is pleaded with profert. The remedy for want of profert, where it should be made, is a demurrer. We cannot presume profert, because it may have been omitted, either improperly or upon a sufficient excuse; and it is, moreover, a general rule, that the party who moves must make out a prima facie case before his adversary is bound to answer. Motion denied.

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

Bbonson, Chief Justice.

Without showing that the plaintiffs made profert of the indentures, there is no foundation for the motion; for oyer can only be demanded when a deed is pleaded with profert. The remedy for want of profert, where it should be made, is a demurrer. We cannot presume profert, because it may have been omitted, either improperly or upon a sufficient excuse; and it is, moreover, a general rule, that the party who moves must make out a prima facie case before his adversary is bound to answer. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 How. Pr. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-rensselaer-v-saunders-nysupct-1846.