Bank of Utica v. Root
Bank of Utica v. Root
4 Hill & Den. 535
Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
The affidavit was defective in not pursuing the language of the rule, (22 Wend. 644,)
Ordered accordingly.
See Fitzburgh v. Truax, (1 Hill, 644, and note;) also Calder v. Lansing, (id. 212;) Richmond v. Cowles, (2 id. 359;) and the note to Britian v. Peabody, ante, p. 64, 5.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.