Legal Opinion

Ross v. Bridge

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1862PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts will sufficiently appear in the following opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

By the court, Rosekrans, Justice.

The plaintiff in the first above entitled action, whose judgment was obtained after the judgments in the other two cases above entitled, moves to set aside one of the judgments in favor of Burdick, on the ground that it was entered upon an offer served by the defendant, pursuant to section 385 of the Code, after the service of a summons and complaint upon him, the offer being for the full sum demanded in the plaintiff’s summons and complaint. The special term has tried this motion. It was claimed on the part of the plaintiff Ross, that sec- „ tion 385 of the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Boyd v. J. M. Ward Furniture, Stove & Carpet Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. In re the Assignment of KaughranNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1886

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API