Walker v. Holmes & Launitz
22 Wend. 614
This text of 22 Wend. 614 (Walker v. Holmes & Launitz) 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
Walker v. Holmes & Launitz, 22 Wend. 614 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1840).
Opinion
By the Court,
The practice on requiring
security for costs has been regulated by statute, and it is enough that the plaintiff has complied with the statute by executing a bond with a sufficient surety, and the surety has justified. See Barnett v. Pardow, 10 Wendell, 615.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Willmont v. Meserole
16 Abb. Pr. 308 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1875)
Miles v. Clarke
17 Bosw. 632 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1859)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
22 Wend. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-holmes-launitz-nysupct-1840.