Legal Opinion

Small v. M'Chesney

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1824PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Curia.

The party who moves has sustained no injuryby this proceeding. He does not shew that the money would *20have been paid, and farther costs prevented, had execution keen delayed till after the filing of the record. The whole proceeding is on the same day, which the law will not divide fractions, unless this be necessary for the purpose of guarding against injustice. Here has been none. The objection is merely technical, and the technical answer is enough where there has been no injury from the proceeding;

Motion denied,!

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Croveno v. . Atlantic Ave. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. People's Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Batchelder Egg Case Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
  3. Pooley v. . City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. William Ottmann & Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
  5. Rogers v. CherrierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API