Arden v. Rice

New York Supreme Court

Arden v. Rice

1 Cai. Cas. 498, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 312

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1804

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Cai. Cas. 498 (Arden v. Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arden v. Rice, 1 Cai. Cas. 498, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 312 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1804).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

By the 8th rule of April, 1796, judgment, after a default entered, may be entered at any time after 4 days in term have intervened. The rule of July term, 1796, ordering all rules for judgment to be entered in term, and not in vacation, was abolished in April term, 1799, and restored the first rule. There is no good reason why four days in term should be given in this case to the defendants, any more than on a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. The defendants take nothing by their motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

By the 8th rule of April, 1796, judgment, after a default entered, may be entered at any time after 4 days in term have intervened. The rule of July term, 1796, ordering all rules for judgment to be entered in term, and not in vacation, was abolished in April term, 1799, and restored the first rule. There is no good reason why four days in term should be given in this case to the defendants, any more than on a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. The defendants take nothing by their motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cai. Cas. 498, 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arden-v-rice-nysupct-1804.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack