Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 How. Pr. 109

Brisbane v. Peabody

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1847

New York Supreme Court · decided 1847-09-15

Motion ly Defendant to set aside the order pro confesso and subsequent proceedings in a foreclosure case.—The Defendant resided in the state of Georgia, and had been proceeded against as a non-resident. The order for his appearance was in the usual form, directing notice to be published in the state paper and Buffalo Courier. The order was published in the state paper and in the Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, but not in the Buffalo Courier.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1847-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1928

4 state decisions

20184718501860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sill, Justice.

¶1The right to an order pro confesso, against a Defendant who has been proceeded against as a non-resident, and who has not appeared, is derived from the statute alone; and to entitle the Plaintiff to it, he must pursue strictly the steps which the same prescribes. The statute requires the notice to appear, to -be published in the state paper and such other paper as the court shall direct. In this case the court directed it to he published in the Courier. This was not done, but the publication was made in the Commercial Advertiser. It is immaterial whether the Defendant has been prejudiced by this change. The court acquired no jurisdiction of the party, and had no right to order the hill to he taken as confessed. Much less could the order be taken of course.

¶2Motion granted, with costs.

/3/howpr/109 · .json · Public domain