Charles v. Stansbury
New York Supreme Court
A NOTICE in this cause had been served on Thursday, of an intended motion to be made on the Monday . ,. , . , c T ' , . , lollovving, being the first day or term. It was objected, that the last day being Sunday, there was not a four-day’s notice. But the court said, that Monday may be considered as the last day ; that such a notice had always been held sufficient, and that in all notices, one day was to be taken inclusive, and the other exclusive.
1Opinion of the Court
Rule granted.
ON the application of A. B. to be admitted to an examination as an attorney of this court, the certificate of clerkship by the attorney was, that the clerk “ had regularly pursued the study of the law, under his direction and superintendance,” &c. The court said that the certificate was insufficient; that the attorney ought to certify that the clerk has served his clerkship, regularly, in the office of such attorney.(a)
Mr. Justice Thompson was absent during the whole of this term, from indisposition.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Arnold v. NyeMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- State Bank v. SeawellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Bissell v. BissellNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Vohlers v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Losee v. Dolan, New York County Courts1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.