¶1It appears that the fourth count was inserted in good faith, and in the belief that it was essential to the plaintiffs’ rights ; and it is not certainly clear but that the count may be necessary for the purpose of avoiding any question about the town in which the locus in quo is situate. The addition of that count can not put the defendants to much trouble or expense. Motions denied,.
2 How. Pr. 239
Doctor v. Kendall
Decided September 15, 1846
New York Supreme Court · decided 1846-09-15
Motion by defendants to strike out the fourth count of the plaintiff’s declaration in each cause. This was a motion to strike out the fourth count of the plaintiffs’ declarations, on the ground of duplicity, the third and fourth counts being for the same cause of action.
Decided 1846-09-15