White v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Hall

8 A.D. 618, 40 N.Y.S. 945, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 1896 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2436

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 A.D. 618 (White v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White v. Hall, 8 A.D. 618, 40 N.Y.S. 945, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 1896 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The rule that an application of this kind cannot be granted without an affidavit of merits in proper form is too well settled to be now questioned. The affidavit [619]*619of merits submitted by the defendants in this action was clearly insufficient, and for that reason the motion below was properly denied. The moving affidavit of Henry L. Clark was also insufficient in that it states that he expects to prove certain things by witnesses, and not that he can prove them. (See McPhail v. Ridout, 83 Hun, 446; Thurfjell v. Witherbee 70 id. 401.) We do not wish to be understood as passing upon the merits of this application, and this decision is without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at Special Term upon proper affidavits. Present—Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ.

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

Per Curiam :

The rule that an application of this kind cannot be granted without an affidavit of merits in proper form is too well settled to be now questioned. The affidavit [619]*619of merits submitted by the defendants in this action was clearly insufficient, and for that reason the motion below was properly denied. The moving affidavit of Henry L. Clark was also insufficient in that it states that he expects to prove certain things by witnesses, and not that he can prove them. (See McPhail v. Ridout, 83 Hun, 446; Thurfjell v. Witherbee 70 id. 401.) We do not wish to be understood as passing upon the merits of this application, and this decision is without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at Special Term upon proper affidavits. Present—Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D. 618, 40 N.Y.S. 945, 75 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 1896 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-hall-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack