Williams v. Geheogan
1 U.S. 267, 1 Dall. 267
Opinion
The act seems to be intended for the benefit of every man, whether an inhabitant, or a foreigner, who is about to leave the State; and the Plaintiff is clearly within the description of persons entitled to a Special Court. But, we think, for the second reason which has been urged by the Defendant’s counsel, that it would be doing manifest injustice to hurry the trial on at this time: Therefore,
By the Court: Let the rule be discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Williams v. Geheogan, 1 U.S. 267, 1 Dall. 267 (1788).
1 U.S. 267 (Williams v. Geheogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Koursa, Inc. v. Manroland, Inc.
971 F. Supp. 2d 765 (N.D. Illinois, 2013)
Stickler v. HALEVY
794 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D. New York, 2011)
American Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP
362 F.3d 136 (First Circuit, 2004)