Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Hilt. 91

Clark v. Lyon

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided October 15, 1858

New York Court of Common Pleas · decided 1858-10-15

This was an action upon a promissory note. The defence was a release under the two-thirds Act. An answer setting up this release was drawn and verified in season for service, and was left by the defendant’s attorney with his clerk to serve, he himself being called from town.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1901

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Hilton, J.

¶1A defendant, failing to serve his answer within the time allowed for that purpose, upon excusing his neglect and showing a good defence, is usually permitted to interpose it upon such terms as to the court may seem proper, according to the circumstances of the case.

¶2*92As no special reason exists for depriving the defendant of the benefit of this general practice of the court, the order appealed from should be modified so as- to allow him to answer on payment of the costs of the motion to open his default. The judgment, execution, and levy now existing, to stand as security for the payment of any judgment the plaintiff may hereafter recover in this action.

¶3Ordered accordingly.

/2/hilt/91 · .json · Public domain