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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1896·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] of 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

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).

8 A.D. 618 (White v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dairymen's League Co-Operative Ass'n v. Brundo
131 Misc. 548 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
Lyman v. Gramercy Club
28 A.D. 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Lyman v. Gramercy Club & The Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
1 Liquor Tax Rep. 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)