Watkins v. Stevens
3 How. Pr. 28
Opinion
Granted the motion, (no costs to either party,) on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ attorney should have endorsed his residence on the narr served, he was irregular in that respect, but did not think the Defendant had used due diligence in ascertaining the residence ; therefore no costs were allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Watkins v. Stevens, 3 How. Pr. 28 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1847).
3 How. Pr. 28 (Watkins v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gribbon v. . Freel
93 N.Y. 93 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)