Arden v. Rice

Decided February 15, 1804

New York Supreme Court · decided 1804-02-15

This cause had been noticed by the plaintiffs for argument, at the last term, on a general demurrer filed by the defendants to the declaration; the court had, on the statement of the plaintiffs’ counsel that the demurrer was merely for delay, overruled it, and granted a rule for judgment, the *counsel pledging himself to open [*499] the rule any day on an affidavit of good cause of demurrer,-or of merits.

Decided 1804-02-15

Spencer, J.

¶1dissented, on the ground that the practice had been different.(a)

¶2Motion denied.

¶3 Judgment may be entered in vacation as of the preceding term on a warrant of attorney given in that vacation to enter up judgment on a bond payable immediately. King v. Shaw, 3 Johns. Rep. 142. A warrant of attorney should also authorize the entry as of the preceding term, when given in vacation. But except in the above cases, neither interlocutory nor final judgment can be entered in vacation. Hogeboom v. Genet, 6 Johns. Rep. 325. To enter a rule nisi for judgment on the 4th day of term after a verdict, is no violation of an order to stay proceedings. Hackley v. Hastie & Patrick, 3 Johns. Rep. 253. It may be entered on any day in term. Rose v. Rock, 6 Johns. Rep. 330.