President, Directors & Co. of the Bank of Newburgh v. Seymour & Smith
New York Supreme Court
ROSS, for the plaintiffs, moved for leave to amend the record ©f the judgment in this cause, by inserting the words “ and Lemuel Smith,’’ after the words “ Wright Seymour,” in the warrant of attorney, and in the memorandum of the record, and by adding the letter s to the word defendant wherever it occurred in the record ; and that the judgment be docketted, nunc pro tunc, against the said Lemuel Smith, defendant.
Read the full summary
ROSS, for the plaintiffs, moved for leave to amend the record ©f the judgment in this cause, by inserting the words “ and Lemuel Smith,’’ after the words “ Wright Seymour,” in the warrant of attorney, and in the memorandum of the record, and by adding the letter s to the word defendant wherever it occurred in the record ; and that the judgment be docketted, nunc pro tunc, against the said Lemuel Smith, defendant. He read an affidavit, stating, that the omission of Lemuel Smith, in making tip the judgment, was by the mistake of a clerk in his office.
1Per curiam
We grant the rule, saving, however, to all persons, the rights they may have, bona fide, acquired either in the real or personal estate of Lemuel Smith, from the 26th day of October, 1816, when the judgment was docketted against Seymour, until the time of granting this rule.
Rule granted.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Kaufman v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Brett v. MingSupreme Court of Florida · 1847
- Shirley v. PhillipsIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
- Williams v. WheelerNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Hall v. WilliamsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1833
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.