Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Abb. Pr. 203

Schuhardt v. Roth

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1860

New York Supreme Court · decided 1860-03-15

Motion on the part of defendants to vacate a judgment and execution for irregularity. It appeared that plaintiff’s attorneys resided in Hew York, and defendants’ attorneys in Troy. The time to answer expired January 16,1860.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1880

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bonney, J. (after stating the facts).

¶1—The motion must, I think, be granted. The service of the order was regular, and in time to stay plaintiff’s proceedings, although not received until two days afterwards, and after judgment had been regularly and properly entered, according to all information which plaintiff’s attorneys then had. The defendants show no cause why earlier attention to the action was not given, and there is reasonable ground, at least, for believing that-their object was delay. Still they were strictly regular (Code, §§ 410, 411), and entitled to the benefit of the order, on receipt of which plaintiff’s attorneys should, I think, have moved to vacate it, or have opened the judgment and waited for an answer.

¶2Motion granted, with $10 costs, to abide the event of the action.

/10/abbpr/203 · .json · Public domain