New York Supreme Court, 1804

Clinton v. Porter

Clinton v. Porter
New York Supreme Court · Decided August 15, 1804
2 Cai. Cas. 176

Counsel

Van Vechten, contra,

Clinton v. Porter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Take the effect of your motion with costs. [1]

Motion granted.

Where the oyer varies from the instrument declared on, the defendant may set it forth in his plea and demur, or he may, without setting it forth, plead non est factum, and avail himself of the variance at the trial. Ehle v. Purdy, 6 Wend. 629. After twelve days demand of oyer by the plaintiff of a release pleaded by the defendant, he may treat the plea as a nullity and onter the defendant’s default. Field v. Goodman, 4 Wend. 214. A small difference between the oyer of a bond and the declaration is not regarded. Henry v. Brown, 19 J. R. 49. The defendant has the same time to plead after delivery as at the time of demand. Mu'holand v. Van Tine, 8 Cow. 132; see Varick v. Bodine, 3 Hill, 444.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.