Legal Opinion

Lusher v. Walton

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1803PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Van Vechten. This is a motion for a rule to refer. The affidavit states that there are long accounts to adjust.

1Per curiam 1

If the cause contains long accounts you cannot try it.

2Per curiam 2

The omission must be accounted for, and therefore we cannot say we will hear it. All notices must be for the first day; see ante, 73, n. (a), if not, an excuse *205must be offered. But a party’s misapprehending a rule has frequently been received as an excuse. The decision quoted has altered the former practice, and if the party will swear he did not know it, he may apply again

Mnott,

waiving, his objection as to the omission of the names, opposed the rule on a deposition by the plaintiff stating that an account between him and the defendant had…

Also in this document: Per curiam 3.

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Shaw v. AyrsNew York Supreme Court · 1825
  2. AnonymousNew York Supreme Court · 1826

4Cited by1 opinion

  1. Patterson v. StettauerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875

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

Powered by the Exa API