Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Wend. 78

Bates v. Loomis

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1830

New York Supreme Court · decided 1830-08-05

Question of costs of non-enumerated motion. The defendant gave notice of his intention to move this court to set aside the default entered in this case for not pleading, and all subsequent proceedings for irregularity. It. appeared on examining the case that, the default was regularly entered, but that the subsequent proceedings were irregular.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1853

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1830-08-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Marcy, J.

¶2The proceedings subsequent to the default must he set aside, but no costs to he paid by the plaintiff By asking for greater and other relief than lie was entitled to, the defendant compelled the plaintiff to come into court, to resist the motion, and he has done so successfully as to pari of it. In ordinary cases, where a motion is successfully resisted, the party opposing is entitled to costs; but here, the party moving succeeding in part of bis motion, would be entitled to costs but for the right of bis adversary to costs. As both parlies, therefore, are entitled to costs, instead of directing a sel-olf of one bill against the Ollier, the practice of the court, is to allow costs to neither parly. The waiving of the motion as to the default, on the hearing, does not change the rights of the parties.

/5/wend/78 · .json · Public domain