History
  • No items yet
midpage
Service v. Heermance
2 Johns. 97
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1806
Check Treatment
Per Curiam

The replication is clearly bad, for it does not state wherein there was purjury or fraud in obtaining the discharge. The plaintiff ought to lay his finger on the particular fact, or fraud, on which he means to rely, otherwise, the defendant can never know what he is to repel.

Judgment for the defendant.*

The plaintiff’s counsel, before the rule for judgment was entered informed the court, that he had learned since the argument, that the Bad died a few days since. The court said, that the defendant take his rule, or not, at his discretion. The defendant, accord-¡ugh’, took judgment.

Case Details

Case Name: Service v. Heermance
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1806
Citation: 2 Johns. 97
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.